E-Book
7 Tage kostenlos im Abo
E-Book
15,62 €

When Doctrine Divides the People of God E-Book

Rhyne R. Putman

0,0

Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.

Herausgeber: Crossway
Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
Sprache: Englisch

Beschreibung

An Excellent Study on Christian Unity and Doctrinal Diversity "This helpful book will encourage Christians to hold their convictions with greater irenicism, humility, awareness, and wisdom." —Gavin Ortlund, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Ojai; author, Finding the Right Hills to Die On As evangelicals, we desire to be biblical—we want our doctrine to be rooted in the Bible, our lives to be guided by the Bible, and our disagreements to be resolved by the Bible. And yet, conflicts within our church communities continue to appear and seemingly multiply with time. Interpretations of the Bible and deeply held convictions often put Christians at odds. Encouraging us toward grace in disagreement and firmness in truth, Rhyne Putman reflects on how Christians can maintain the biblical call for unity despite having genuine disagreements.

Details

Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:

Android

iOS

von Legimi
zertifizierten E-Readern

Kindle™-E-Readern
(für ausgewählte Pakete)

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:

Android

iOS

Bewertungen

0,0

Rezensionen(0 Rezensionen)

Leseprobe

Thank you for downloading this Crossway book.

Sign-up for the Crossway Newsletter for updates on special offers, new resources, and exciting global ministry initiatives:

Crossway Newsletter

Or, if you prefer, we would love to connect with you online:

“Many have wondered how Christians who read the same Bible can come to such different conclusions about what it means. Rhyne Putman not only provides a thorough answer to that question; he also helps us live more peaceably and fruitfully amidst our differences. This helpful book will encourage Christians to hold their convictions with greater irenicism, humility, awareness, and wisdom.”

Gavin Ortlund, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Ojai; author, Finding the Right Hills to Die On

“With keen historical and philosophical insight, Rhyne Putman probes deeply the roots of Protestantism’s disputatious and division-making nature. He asks the right questions and addresses the roots of the problems that have prevented even evangelical Christians with a high view of Scripture from uniting in common causes for the sake of the gospel. Without diminishing or downplaying our differences and their consequences, he calls us to once more heed the call of Wesley in his famous ‘Catholic Spirit’ letter and reach across the theological divides and say ‘if your heart is as my heart, give me your hand’ in things we can do together for the sake of Christ. Here is a practical study of how to disagree in love, without becoming disagreeable, much less foes. Highly recommended!”

Ben Witherington III, Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctrinal Studies, Asbury Theological Seminary

“Rhyne Putman is one of the best Baptist theologians writing today, and he has given us a superb study on two themes central to Scripture: Christian unity and doctrinal diversity. Seldom have these topics been dealt with together in a more coherent way. This is an important book.”

Timothy George, Research Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

“This book by Rhyne Putman is superbly done. I will be quick to commend it to others who want to understand how to navigate Christian differences with conviction and compassion, with both a love for truth and a heart of love. The chapter on Wesley and Whitefield and their complicated relationship alone makes the book worth the price! Buy it and be blessed.”

Daniel L. Akin, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

“When Doctrine Divides the People of God is one of the most important books written since the turn of the twenty-first century. Biblically faithful, wise, and humane in his reflections, Putman addresses two of the most important questions of our time: First, how can faithful evangelical Christians come to such drastically different conclusions on matters of doctrine? Second, how should we handle those disagreements? Given that evangelical Christians will likely experience increased attacks from the antagonists of our secular age, we should take Putman’s advice to heart, uniting whenever and however we can, to bear witness to the gospel once for all delivered to the saints. Recommended highly and without reservation.”

Bruce Riley Ashford, Provost and Professor of Theology and Culture, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; coauthor, The Gospel of Our King

“In this fascinating book, Rhyne Putman models not only erudition and breadth of study but also a necessary concern for the union of doctrine and practice. This work needs to be read by evangelicals and nonevangelicals alike. It teaches and models epistemic humility in the face of scriptural authority, thus showing how we can foster both confessional commitment and unity in the gospel across confessional lines.”

Matthew Pinson, President and Professor of Theology, Welch College

“If evangelicals share a commitment to the gospel and a high view of Scripture, then why isn’t there more agreement on theological matters? This is the thorny question that Rhyne Putman takes on and answers so ably in When Doctrine Divides the People of God. I wish I had read this book when I was a seminarian who thought he had all the answers! Like Putman, I long for a deeper sense of catholicity and a greater spirit of cooperation with fellow believers in other traditions. This book will help pastors, theologians, and other leaders work toward a greater embodiment of Jesus’s high priestly prayer of John 17 with conviction and civility.”

Nathan A. Finn, Provost and Dean of the University Faculty, North Greenville University

When Doctrine Divides the People of God

An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity

Rhyne R. Putman

Foreword by David S. Dockery

When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity

Published by Crossway 1300 Crescent Street Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law. Crossway® is a registered trademark in the United States of America.

Cover design: Spencer Fuller, Faceout Studios

First printing 2020

Printed in the United States of America

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the author.

Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-4335-6787-2 ePub ISBN: 978-1-4335-6790-2 PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-6788-9 Mobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-6789-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Putman, Rhyne R., author.

Title: When doctrine divides the people of God : an evangelical approach to theological diversity / Rhyne R. Putman ; foreword by David S. Dockery.

Description: Wheaton : Crossway, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Subjects: LCSH: Bible—Evidences, authority, etc. | Bible—Hermeneutics. | Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Church controversies. | Interdenominational cooperation.

Classification: LCC BS480 .P88 2020 (print) | LCC BS480 (ebook) | DDC 230/.04624—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019023079

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019023080

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

2020-04-22 12:24:53 PM

For my parents,

Glen and Diane Putman,

model peacemakers,

children of God (Matt. 5:9)

Contents

Foreword by David S. Dockery

Abbreviations

Introduction: When Doctrine Divides the People of God

Part One: Why We Disagree about Doctrine

1 We Read Imperfectly

General Hermeneutics and the Clarity of Scripture

2 We Read Differently

The Contribution of Exegesis and Hermeneutics to Theological Diversity

3 We Reason Differently

The Role of Guesswork in Interpretation

4 We Feel Differently

The Role of Emotions in Theological Diversity

5 We Have Different Biases

Tradition, Belief, and Confirmation Bias

Part Two: What We Should Do about Doctrinal Disagreement

6 When Should We Change Our Minds?

Insights from the Epistemology of Disagreement

7 When Should Doctrine Divide Us?

On Theological Boundary-Making

8 How Then Shall We Disagree?

Lessons from Whitefield and Wesley

Acknowledgments

Bibliography

General Index

Scripture Index

Foreword

Jesus prayed for unity for his followers in what many consider the greatest prayer recorded in Holy Scripture. In our Lord’s own prayer, which he offered just before he was arrested, we see Jesus Christ pouring out his heart to the Father for his followers on the night before he died for us (John 17). This prayer was not only for the disciples and immediate followers of Christ, but for the church through the ages. Elsewhere, we are reminded that Jesus still prays for his own today from his exalted position at the right hand of God (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25). His prayers for believers today surely reflect the words of John 17, which is a prayer for unity and a prayer for truth, a prayer for a holy uniqueness and a unique holiness for his followers.

In verses 20–26 of John 17, we read that Jesus prayed for his followers to experience a spiritual unity that exemplifies the oneness of the Father and the Son. Yet, far too often the followers of Christ throughout the centuries have been characterized by controversy, infighting, disagreement, and disunity. It is to this tension that Rhyne Putman has applied his insightful theological skills, wrestling with the issues and questions associated with doctrinal divisions among the people of God. In this extraordinarily well-written and well-designed volume, Putman explores not only why we disagree about doctrinal matters but what we should do about these doctrinal disagreements.

If the church believes the Bible and if the words of John 17 are seriously taken to heart, then why do these doctrinal differences seem not only to continue, but to multiply and expand? Putman brilliantly examines perspectives on the nature of Scripture and the hermeneutical questions involved in moving from Bible to theology. This careful treatment is followed by a thoughtful look at the role of reason, tradition, experience, and emotion in the formulation of Christian doctrine. Such a wide-ranging exploration will certainly prove to be helpful to readers.

The second half of the book encourages readers to move beyond explanation, taking steps toward application. Putman engages the thorny issues of when to change one’s mind about previously held positions, and when and where to draw the lines regarding these doctrinal matters. The practical outworking of these challenging questions are given careful attention. WhenDoctrine Divides the People of God concludes on a hopeful note as Putman provides guidance on how we should disagree, offering a historically informed pathway regarding fellowship, shared service, cooperation, and collaboration.

The Nicene Creed, an important fourth-century confession, describes the church as one, holy, catholic or universal, and apostolic. Living out these creedal convictions and applying Putman’s framework are much needed in our day. We should not, however, be naive to the difficulties involved especially when sorting out differences that arise over first-order theological issues, not to mention secondary and tertiary matters, requiring much prayer and wisdom.

Christ’s followers are called to exemplify love and truth, oneness and holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. Certainly, we are to promote Christian unity at every opportunity. True believers belong to the same Father and are called to the same service. Believers trust the same Savior and have received the same gift of God’s grace, thus sharing a common salvation. Ultimately, true unity must be built on true truth. Any other kind of unity is earthly, worldly, temporal, and thus falls short of the John 17 ideal.

Putman has offered beneficial guidance for his readers, doing so with exemplary exegetical skill, historically informed reasoning, and pastoral sensitivity. Taking seriously the reality of doctrinal differences that have developed over the years, he recognizes that a unity that exists without truth is mushy, misguided, and meaningless. The yearning for unity is real, as heard from those who ask, “Why can’t we all just get along?” Putman, however, enables us to see that those who promote a kind of unity not grounded in truth and those who champion truth without a concern for love and unity are hardly consistent with scriptural teaching or the aspirations of the Nicene Creed.

As we reflect on Jesus’s prayer in John 17, we see that his desire is not only for spiritual unity but also for sanctified truth (John 17:17). So, as affirmed in the historical creed, the church is not only one and universal, but also holy and apostolic. True holiness is based on truth taught by the apostles and made known to us in Holy Scripture (John 14:6; 16:13; 17:17). Just as it saddens the Father and the Son and harms the witness of the church when we fail to love one another and demonstrate biblical unity, so, likewise, the witness of the church is harmed when we look to the world to be our guide rather than to the truthfulness of God’s word and the best of the Christian tradition.

How then do we know when our calling to truth and holiness is a call to be different not only from the world but from other professing believers? Putman provides a wise resource for those struggling with this question. After all, the question is not new. As early as the time of Tertullian (155–220) and the Montanists in the late second century, and especially with the debate surrounding Augustine (354–430) and the Donatists two centuries later, these questions were raised and have continued to be raised through the years. In American Christianity, the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy in the early twentieth century brought about splits in major denominations, and parallel splits between conservatives and liberals took place in a number of churches in the United States and Canada. Putman’s work is designed to strengthen theological convictions, foster Christian unity, and provide guidance for those who tend to divide or separate from others too quickly. Putman knows that such unnecessary fragmentation diminishes opportunities for genuine church reform and renewal.

Christians are thus called to live in tension emphasizing both truth and love, holiness and unity. It seems paramount in our polarized and fragmented world for followers of Christ to not only balance commitments to truth and love, but to pursue genuine Christian unity informed by authentic doctrinal conviction. The apostle Paul exhorts us not to take a wait-and-see attitude, but to be eager to preserve the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). God’s Spirit energizes the church to exemplify unity to an observing world. When believers cultivate and practice the virtues described in Ephesians 4:1–6, they display and preserve the unity of the Spirit. Paul’s admonition to unity also includes the basis for this unity.

Paul continues his appeal in verses 4 and 5 of Ephesians 4 by claiming that “one hope,” “one faith,” and “one baptism” exist because there is “one Lord.” The “one hope” of our calling points to the confident expectation of Christ’s coming glory. The “one faith” refers to the sum and substance of the church’s belief. No long-term Christian unity will be possible unless believers share a common commitment to apostolic doctrine, the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). This “one faith” reflects the common experience of faith in Christ and the same access to him shared by all believers. “One baptism” pictures the outward expression of faith in the “one Lord.” The larger context of Ephesians 4 indicates that true Christian unity expresses itself through variety (Eph. 4:7–12), bringing about maturity (vv. 13–16) and purity (vv. 17–32) in the body of Christ.

Rhyne Putman is to be commended for offering this superb and substantive volume, which in many ways provides a thoughtful and engaging blueprint for living out the expectations of scriptural teaching found in John 17 and Ephesians 4, doing so with a thorough exploration of the challenges and issues associated with hermeneutics, reason, epistemology, experience, tradition, bias, boundary-making, all informed by his grasp of the history of Christian doctrine.

Putman’s exercise in theological method is ever so much more than ivory tower discussion. Readers will be blessed by this work, enabling them to be the people of God before a watching world. We are reminded afresh that visible unity grounded in theological truth is God’s expectation for Christ’s followers. Let us pray and work for renewal and unity not only in our theological commitments but in our worship, in our fellowship, in our educational efforts, in our shared service and social engagement, and ultimately in our gospel proclamation. We trust that Putman’s work will not only help us take steps toward theological understanding and maturity but will lead us toward renewal to hear afresh and live out the words of Jesus himself: “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21).

David S. Dockery

Professor of Theology, Theologian-in-Residence, and Special Consultant to the President,

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Abbreviations

Descartes, René. Oeuvres de Descartes. Vols. 1–12. Rev. ed. Edited by Charles Adam and Paul Tannery. Paris: J. Vrin/C.N.R.S., 1964–1976.

BECNT

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Peirce, Charles S. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 vols. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (vols. 1–6) and Arthur W. Burks (vols. 7–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1958.

ICC

International Critical Commentary

JETS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JGRChJ

Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut T. Lehmann, and Christopher Boyd Brown. 75 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–.

NIDNTTE

Moisés Silva, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.

NPNF1

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace. 14 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

NPNF2

Nicene- and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace. 14 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldreich Zwingli’s Werke. Edited by M. Schuler and J. Schulthess. 7 vols. Zurich, 1828–1842.

TDNT

Friedrich, Gerhard and Gerhard Kittel, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament]. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965–1976.

Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke.Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 73 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–2009.

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. 10 vols. Berlin, Leipzig, Zurich: Heinsius, 1905–1991.

Introduction

When Doctrine Divides the People of God

“Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!”

Psalm 133:1

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: . . . a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.”

Ecclesiastes 3:1, 5b

“Protestant Leader Refutes Other ‘Protestant’ Heretic over His Erroneous Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.”

Had there been a thing called the internet five centuries ago when Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli had their famous feud over Christian Communion, the blogosphere might have lit up with clickbait headlines like this one. The armchair commentators of social media could have rushed to publish their underdeveloped musings on the whole affair, either by taking sides in the debate or by asserting their moral superiority over the whole debacle. Luther and Zwingli may have taken shots at each other in their respective podcasts, exchanged a series of combative tweets and blog posts, debated in a YouTube simulcast, and then followed the whole thing up with a conciliatory book tour.

But in the actual sixteenth century, less than a decade after the Reformation began, the German and Swiss pastor-theologians engaged each other in a series of tracts and written disputations made publicly available through the new mass media technology of the moveable type printing press.1 They were eventually called to an intervention by Philip of Hesse—a young German prince convinced that a face-to-face meeting would help resolve their conflict. Though political motives drove his efforts at reconciliation, Philip may very well be considered the first Protestant ecumenist. He longed for the sparring Reformers to make nice so that Protestants across Europe could take a stand together against the bullying of the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. Philip wanted to see a united Protestant movement that could rival Rome in its scope and power.

Team Luther and Team Zwingli met at Marburg Castle in the first three days of October 1529. This meeting of the minds, known by history as the Marburg Colloquy, was a defining moment in the early years of the Reformation, not because it was successful but because it was such a letdown. To Philip’s chagrin, no political alliance of German and Swiss Protestants would emerge. But the greater tragedy may be the fracas that kept these giants from personal fellowship and cooperation in a time of ecclesial and social upheaval.2

So, what went wrong? Both of these pastors practiced the Supper in virtually the same way. Unlike many late medieval Catholics, both believed that the sacrament was for both laypersons and the priestly class. Yet they were poles apart in their understandings of the meaning of the Supper. Luther rigorously argued that the risen, glorified body of Christ was present “in,” “with,” and “under” the bread and the wine of Communion.3Zwingli, on the other hand, insisted that the bread and the wine are merely symbolic representations of Christ’s body and blood. For the Swiss Reformer, the Supper served as an important reminder of Christ’s great sacrifice for our sin, but for the German, the Supper was an actual means by which God imparted grace into the lives of those who believe.

The kerfuffle between Luther and Zwingli began with different assumptions and starting points. First, they disagreed about the nature of the sacraments.4 Second, they clashed over Christology, with each accusing the other of holding a heretical position on the union of Christ’s human and divine natures.5 Third, each took issue with the other’s hermeneutics. They debated over what Jesus meant when he took the bread at the Last Supper and said, “This is my body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24; cf. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22). Luther took Jesus’s words “This is my body” quite literally. Because he believed the human nature of Jesus is present everywhere, he contended Jesus is bodily present in the bread and wine of Communion. Zwingli, who contended Jesus was using figurative language here, thought Luther’s interpretation had a whiff of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation that both men claimed to reject.6

Aside from the colorful rhetorical jabs fired at each other, the colloquy was principally a debate about key biblical texts and the interpretive rules for distinguishing between metaphorical and literal descriptions. It was first and foremost a dispute between men who read the same Bible differently. They reasoned differently about the texts. They felt differently about their respective theological positions. They interacted differently with the tradition that had gone before them. Even though Luther and Zwingli were both staunch defenders of the clarity of Scripture, they disagreed adamantly about what the biblical text meant on this point.

At the end of the colloquy, the two Reformers and their associates acknowledged their agreement with one another on fourteen out of fifteen tenets of the faith in a document known as the Marburg Articles. It could have been the making of a beautiful friendship, but one article—the final article on the Lord’s Supper—drove a permanent wedge between the two groups and even kept Luther from acknowledging Zwingli as his Christian brother at the time. A weeping Zwingli pleaded with Luther for his right hand in fellowship, which the German Reformer denied him. For many contemporary readers, the differences between these positions on the Lord’s Supper may seem trivial, but in the minds of these sixteenth-century Reformers, the gospel itself was on the line.7

Though historians like to ruminate on what might have happened had the Marburg Colloquy gone another direction, only God knows what the Protestant world would look like if Luther and Zwingli had been able to work through this matter. Protestants, who share a core conviction that every individual should be able to read the Bible for himself or herself, more than likely would have found themselves in another equally divisive conflict a few months later.8

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Nearly five centuries later, the spirit of dissent that permeated the Marburg Colloquy still haunts Protestantism and evangelicalism. We still quarrel over how best to understand the beginning of the Bible (Genesis 1–3), its ending (Revelation 19–22), and a good deal of what is in between.9 We fight over which existing structure of church government most closely conforms to the biblical pattern (1 Tim. 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9). We can be contentious over the proper candidates for baptism. We wag our tongues over speaking in tongues and the so-called miraculous spiritual gifts (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:1–13; 1 Corinthians 12–14; Heb. 2:3–4). We can have heated disagreements about predestination, election, and human freedom (Romans 8–9; Eph. 1:3–14). We have extended discussions about the extent of the atonement (Isa. 53:6; John 3:16; 10:15; Col. 1:20; 1 John 2:2). We even spar over what method of counseling or approach to apologetics is most faithful to Scripture. When we are not arguing about our theological traditions, we are caught up in more academic controversies like the recent scholarly debates over Paul’s relationship to Judaism, the extent of God’s foreknowledge, or the eternal relations within the Trinity.

Even as society becomes increasingly antagonistic toward traditional Christian beliefs and practices, many followers of Jesus remain gridlocked over the doctrinal matters that separate them. Though we live in what is becoming a post-Christian culture, some segments of the church have never been more theologically engaged—or divided. Never before in the history of the church have our theological disputes been so public, so accessible. The Reformation may have put the Bible in the hands of every individual, but the digital age has given everyone an open platform to discuss doctrine. Through the blessing (or the curse) of social media, everyone who has an opinion has an opportunity to air their viewpoints and project their disagreements to the world. Yet even with all of this ability to communicate, we still gravitate toward echo chambers that protect us from the risks of having open dialogue. We love protecting our tribes, our labels, and the self-assuring safety that comes in numbers. Though we should be modeling civility for our deeply divided political and cultural climate, we who are the people of God have done very little to set ourselves apart from the broader culture. Instead of embodying the gospel of grace, we have just been part of the problem.

It comes as no surprise that we are at odds with the unbelieving world—Jesus promised that would happen (Matt. 10:22, 34; John 15:18)—but why do we “devour one another” (Gal. 5:15) with our infighting over doctrine? Jesus told his disciples that they would prove themselves to be his followers by their love for one another (John 13:35). On the night of his betrayal, he asked the Father to give his followers perfect unity—that they would be “one” as the Father and the Son are one—so that “the world may know” he was indeed sent by God (John 17:23). In essence, Jesus wanted his people to reflect the perfect union of the Father and the Son in the immanent Trinity. Given this kind of mandate, why do Christ-followers seem to revel in the “narcissism of minor details”? Should we continue sparring in an increasingly anti-Christian context?

One answer to these questions comes from ecumenists who have dedicated themselves to the visible unity of all Christian traditions as an essential element of Christian witness. Ecumenists get their name from a Greek term meaning “the inhabited world” or “universal” (oikoumenikos)—the same term (oikoumenē) used to describe the ecumenical councils of the early church. Ecumenists seek to stage a “sneak preview” on earth of the future eschatological reconciliation of all followers of Christ throughout history. In their quest for visible (and sometimes institutional) unity, ecumenists are sometimes accused of making too little of the convictions that set these traditions apart. Though building bridges between various traditions and denominations can bear much fruit, the tendency of some ecumenists to overlook or ignore doctrine is deeply troubling.

Other evangelical scholars have written excellent works on the possibility and parameters of evangelical ecumenism, issues I do not plan to explore here in detail.10 I am more interested in the theological processes that led to these divergent traditions. However, I wish to preface this book on theological disagreement with a disclaimer about ecumenism. Many within my evangelical tradition cringe at the very mention of the term ecumenical because of the bad taste left in their mouth from twentieth-century ecumenical movements.11 While some evangelicals suggest that we should recover the term ecumenism in a way that is consistent with our convictions about the gospel,12 others maintain it is wiser to refrain from using it altogether because of its association with the ecumenical movements of the past.13 Others prefer the related term catholicity, which doesn’t come with all the sociopolitical baggage of ecumenism.14

I share many of the concerns my evangelical forebears had about ecumenical endeavors of the past. First, several (but not all) of the twentieth-century ecumenical efforts sought a tawdry peace through surrender and compromise. Evangelicals have felt that the social focus of many ecumenists undermined commitment to the gospel and personal evangelism. They were also uncomfortable with the easy peace made with some in these movements who denied essential tenets of the faith.15Of the eighteenth-century Latitudinarians, who shared with modern ecumenicists a penchant for theological accommodation, John Wesley wrote, “This unsettledness of thought, this being ‘driven to and fro, and tossed about with every wind of doctrine,’ is a great curse, not a blessing, an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism.”16 Unity without truth is no actual unity at all because it is devoid of a common purpose.For this reason, Paul told first-century believers to be “of the same mind” (Phil. 2:2; cf. 1:27) and Peter told persecuted believers to “have unity of mind” (1 Pet. 3:8).

Second, many evangelicals are skeptical of post-Vatican II efforts to forge ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholics, especially when something as central as the doctrine of justification by faith still divides them. As the controversy surrounding the 1994 statement Evangelicals and Catholics Together illustrated, evangelicals do not all agree with one another about how precisely they relate to Roman Catholicism.17 On the other side of the aisle, Roman Catholics disagree with one another about whether the condemnations of the Protestant doctrine of justification made by the Council of Trent (1545–1563) still apply.18

Third, evangelicals rebuff the anti-realism of some ecumenical efforts. One of the most significant (and most controversial) works in contemporary theological method was George Lindbeck’s 1984 book, The Nature of Doctrine. In it, the Lutheran ecumenist suggested one way of getting around our doctrinal disputes would be recognizing that doctrine is merely a culturally conditioned way of regulating our belief systems. Lindbeck denied that doctrine depicts reality. Instead, it is just a set of rules or grammar that shape the way we believe. By conceiving of doctrine in this way, he hoped to resolve conflicts between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians who present contrary doctrinal assertions.19 However, evangelical theologians reacted strongly, asserting that such an anti-realist way of reading Christian doctrine undermined its ability to speak truthfully about God and his world.20

Fourth, some evangelicals equate ecumenism with normative religious pluralism or compromising interreligious dialogue between Christian and non-Christian religions.21 The term ecumenical typically signifies attempts at visible or organizational unity between self-described Christians, not agreement with other world religions. Though this pluralistic use of ecumenical is not the ordinary sense of the word, evangelicals are right to be concerned about any attempt to normalize religious pluralism. The centrality of Christ and exclusivity of the Christian gospel are central tenets of our worldview (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Finally, evangelicals in Free Church traditions like mine are particularly wary of any talk of institutional unions because of the often contrary ways Christians think about church government. The Baptists in my faith tradition emphasize the independence of local churches that enables them to make decisions for themselves under the authority of Scripture and the direction of the Holy Spirit without an outside governing body. This vision of church leadership is incompatible with top-down, hierarchical models of church government where local churches take marching orders from a central office.22

While I do have reservations about some ecumenical movements in recent history, I want to stress the great need for catholicity rooted in the biblical gospel. Catholicity is a celebration of the things that all gospel-loving Christians share in common. All who have been justified by Christ through faith believe the same gospel and belong to the same family. As Paul asserted, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4–6). We may have our differences, but we must recognize that among followers of Jesus, there is only one body, one hope, and one calling. We share a common charge to go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that our Lord commanded (Matt. 28:19–20).

Rivalry, discontent, and disagreement may be part of every natural family, but an adopted family rooted in divine forgiveness should extend that same forgiveness to one another, even if they cannot simply overlook all the things that set them apart. We should make every effort “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). We should strive toward “unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (v. 13). Though we recognize this as our ideal, we are on the lookout for “gospels” contrary to the gospel of Christ that cannot provide this true catholic unity (Gal. 1:8).

On occasion, Protestants and evangelicals must engage in polemic theology, an expression of Christian doctrine that explains and defends the distinctive beliefs of a particular theological tradition. Polemics serves an important and necessary function in maintaining and replicating belief. It stresses the importance of biblical truth and the need for coherence in a theological system. It eschews accommodation and can increase confidence in one’s tradition.

The word polemic has its origins in a Greek word meaning “war” or “warlike” (polemikos). Sometimes such warring is necessary when opposing doctrines pose a danger to the faith and to the flock that God has entrusted the shepherds to protect (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:10–16). We must guard diligently those doctrines that we believe are essential to the Christian faith. But a polemic theology lacking wisdom or love can create more problems than it fixes. In the same way that a war can be justified with a just cause and righteous conduct, polemics can and should be carried out with Christian virtue and kindness. We must be willing to speak truth but always with love and with the building up of the body as our end (Eph. 4:15–16).

Other times, we must practice irenic theology. Irenicists, who draw their name from a Greek word meaning “peace” (eirenikos), seek peace with fellow believers from other traditions in their theological discourse. In so doing, they embody Jesus’s blessing as the sons and daughters of God (Matt. 5:9). An irenic and graceful spirit should characterize our intramural disagreements. But just as polemic theology without love can be an abuse of polemics, irenic theology without a commitment to biblical truth can become imbalanced and distorted. The preacher of Ecclesiastes says that there is “a time for war, and a time for peace” (Eccles. 3:8b). We might add that there is a time for polemics and a time for irenics. We can fight false teaching without being contentious, and we can be peacemakers without waving the white flag in the surrender of our biblical convictions. Christian unity is a good, valuable thing to pursue, but not at the expense of essential truth.

Unlike the spirit of theological minimalism that permeates so much of the ecumenical conversation, the discussion of doctrinal disagreement in this book celebrates both doctrine and difference. Protestants and evangelicals need teaching rooted in God’s self-revelation. They need to be able to articulate the theological content of the Bible in a manner that is clear and concise and fitting for their context. They also need to be free to read the Bible for themselves without a church magisterium (or a popular blog) simply telling them what to believe.

As lovers of the truth, we should not reduce our doctrinal disagreements to much ado about nothing. Healthy disagreements are an important part of sanctification and growth in “grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). The doctrinal distinctives of our traditions and denominations are important, giving shape to who we are. To force conformity of thought or the capitulation of beliefs would work against the grain of what it means to be a Protestant. If I may misquote John Henry Newman, to be deep in uniformity of thought is to cease to be Protestant.23

The Plan of This Book

This book is a work in theological method that explores the nature of doctrinal diversity from a distinctly evangelical point of view. Theological method (sometimes called theological prolegomena) is an area of theology that addresses big-picture questions about the nature of doctrine, the sources of theology, and the processes by which we develop doctrine. It is a philosophy of theology. This book is meant to be an interdisciplinary exploration of doctrinal disagreement that borrows from the rich resources of hermeneutics, philosophy, tradition, and other academic disciplines such as psychology and the social sciences.

Here, I will seek to answer two fundamental questions about theological diversity: First, how do Christ-followers with similar convictions about Scripture and the gospel come to such drastically different points of view in matters of faith and practice? Second, what should otherwise like-minded Christians do about the doctrines that divide them? This is not an exhaustive survey of every factor behind our theological diversity—I’m confident there are many important matters I don’t address here—but a summary of the major factors I see at work in the divide among evangelical Christians.

The focus here is on theological diversity among Protestant evangelicals who affirm sola Scriptura—the Reformation doctrine that Scripture is the supreme source and only normative standard for Christian doctrine. Evangelicals confess Scripture as the only inspired, inerrant, and infallible revelation of God.24 Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians give tradition a more prominent place of authority than their Protestant and evangelical counterparts do. For some in these traditions, ecclesial tradition is often placed alongside Scripture as an equal authority.25 By contrast, sola Scriptura Protestants recognize tradition as a valuable resource for Christian theology but understand its authority to be derivative, not primary. In other words, tradition is not an independent, primary authority and is authoritative for the Christian only when it correctly conveys the message of Scripture.

Those in faith traditions that gauge religious beliefs by personal experiences (e.g., some in Pentecostal traditions or some liberal Protestants) are very likely to have differences of opinion because of the uniqueness of personal life experiences, and it should come as no surprise when such competing individual religious authorities yield diverse results. Some might assert the “Holy Spirit” is leading them to a new belief or practice contrary to Scripture, but the Holy Spirit cannot contradict what he inspired as inerrant truth. One may claim the experience of having been on a tour through heaven or of receiving a personal message from Jesus, but such claims are not provable by Scripture and therefore cannot be binding on all believers. They may be genuinely spiritual experiences without being from the Spirit of God (1 John 4:1–6). Again, sola Scriptura Protestants may recognize the value of experience in Christian theology without giving experience primacy in the formation of beliefs. Experience can confirm the truth of Scripture in the life of the believer, but experience does not dictate what Christians should believe about belief and practice.

I also will not address disagreements with other Protestant groups who downplay or outright dismiss the unique authority of Scripture in the formation of Christian doctrine or practice. Dissent with readers of Scripture who endorse its piecemeal application is inevitable for those who unequivocally invoke its authority on disputed matters. Those who deny the full truthfulness of the Bible usually claim conflicting opinions among biblical authors themselves. They will pit Jesus against Paul or Paul against “deutero-Paul” and take sides with one author or another on the issues most important to them. Though important conversations need to be had with those from these liberal and progressive traditions, those discussions are well beyond the scope of my project here.

I am more concerned with this question: how do evangelical Christians who claim the same final authority come to their opposing views, especially when they share common convictions about the sufficiency, clarity, and inerrancy of Scripture? Why do believers who agree that the whole Bible is true still disagree about the truth it teaches? In what way can we say Scripture is “clear” if what it says seems so foggy to us?

The first part of this book is an exploration of the question, “Why are the people of God divided over doctrine?” This section is primarily descriptive, meaning I am only describing what happens in theological disagreement, not necessarily what should happen. Just like the controversy between Luther and Zwingli, I submit that most doctrinal disputes among Protestants and evangelicals today begin as disagreements over how best to understand the Bible, though other social, psychological, and rational factors are also key in understanding these feuds. I remain convinced that a better awareness of our own interpretive processes and the way we come to our theological beliefs can change the tenor of our debates.

I begin Part One with a description of the interpretive limitations of every Bible reader that builds on the insights of contemporary hermeneutical theory (chapter 1). This chapter is an exploration of the general hermeneutics of our interpretive differences, i.e., an exploration of how all human interpretation works. In Luther and Zwingli’s day, the charge made by their Roman Catholic opponents was that Scripture was in need of a formal interpreter because ordinary people could not be entrusted with the responsibility of discovering its proper meaning. Today, the postmodern temptation is to blame this diversity of opinion on an unstable text without meaning, pronouncing authorial intent irrelevant and locating ultimate authority in the reader or the reading community. The realities of hermeneutical diversity—what Christian Smith has provocatively called “pervasive interpretive pluralism”26—pose a real challenge to the evangelical affirmation of the clarity of Scripture. Using the insights of evangelical hermeneutics scholars, I will suggest that traditional Protestant affirmations of the clarity of Scripture and the illuminating activity of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation can be maintained even in the face of pervasive hermeneutical diversity.

Chapter 2 is an introductory overview of the specific types of exegetical difference between Christians that can contribute to doctrinal disagreement. Whereas the focus of chapter 1 is general hermeneutics, the focus here is special hermeneutics, i.e., the specific ways readers approach biblical texts. Here I offer an introductory overview of specific ways in which differences at the level of biblical exegesis and historical interpretation can shape our various theological outcomes, something that gets surprisingly little treatment in many discussions of theological method. Much of what is covered here is material covered in Biblical Hermeneutics 101: textual criticism, the role of semantics, syntax, and literary and historical criticism. I intend to show ways in which each step in the process of biblical interpretation can impact our understanding of biblical doctrines.

The more constructive arguments of the book begin with chapter 3, which addresses the role reason plays in our interpretive conflicts. Poor deductive and inductive reasoning may have some explanatory power with regards to our theological differences, but faults of the individual mind cannot account for all the differences. I will contend that abductive reasoning, a type of informal logic that depends on creative thinking, is the primary way we create and choose theological models for interpreting the thematic unity of Scripture. Differences are inevitable given the sizable role human creativity plays in interpreting Scripture and developing doctrine. Some of this discussion is unavoidably technical, but I have tried to address these issues in a way that will benefit nonspecialists who are patient enough to follow the argument through to its conclusion.

The role human psychology plays in our interpretive and theological disagreements is the subject of chapter 4. I interact extensively with the work of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who argues that people quarrel over ethics, politics, and religion because they begin with fundamentally different intuitions or feelings about morality. I critically employ Haidt’s research to talk about the way in which experience and personality can shape our biblical interpretation and theological construction. I will suggest that emotion and intuition may have a powerful effect on the interpretive choices we make, even if we believe we are being completely rational in our reading of the Bible.

I conclude Part One with a discussion about the ways bias and tradition have tremendous sticking power in our theological formation and doctrinal disagreements (chapter 5). Tradition is an important formative tool in the life of any Christian, but uncritical engagement with tradition can foster unhelpful biases in theological formation. Using research from cognitive psychology, I address ways in which our reading of the Bible frequently tends to reinforce our previously held theological assumptions rather than producing faithful exegesis. I conclude the chapter with suggestions drawn from the same research to minimize theological confirmation bias.

The second part of this book is more prescriptive than descriptive, and it addresses a more practical question: “What should the people of God do about doctrinal division?” In chapter 6, I engage with philosophers working in the area of “epistemology of disagreement” to help address the question “When should we change our minds about our theological disagreements and when should we agree to disagree?” As I hope to show, the practical advice offered by these philosophers can be useful for our in-house theological debates.

In chapter 7, I ask an ecclesiological question: When should doctrine divide the people of God and when should it unite them? When should we be joined together in cooperative fellowship and when should we go our separate ways? I explore the concept of doctrinal taxonomy, the way in which Christians tend to rank doctrines according to their importance. Here I explore the ecclesiological convictions which draw lines around our tribal fellowships and attempt to define the gospel in its simplest biblical expression. I offer three tests for determining where a particular tenet should fit in a doctrinal taxonomy.

The book concludes with a constructive Christian ethic of doctrinal disagreement informed by Scripture, church history, and pastoral theology. How should we act toward one another while we await the future eschatological event wherein God finally resolves all our differences of opinion? I appeal to the religious conflict and subsequent personal reconciliation of early evangelical leaders George Whitefield and John Wesley as models for a contemporary evangelical praxis for theological disagreement.

I pray this book helps some think more clearly about how we disagree about doctrine and how we respond to our parochial skirmishes. I contend that clarity in this matter requires a better understanding of how we move from the Bible to our theological systems of belief. I am convinced that appropriate respect for differing traditions and beliefs can honor the Lord Jesus and improve our gospel witness to the watching world. More than anything else, I want God’s word, not a favorite theological tradition or denominational distinctive, to be the master of our thinking when we talk about doctrine.

1. Zwingli began the engagement with Luther with his Amica exegesis, id est exposition eucharistiae negotii ad Martinum Lutherum (1527; Z 5:562–758). Luther responded with Daß diese Worte Christi: Das ist mein Leib, noch feststehen wider die Schwarmgeister (1527; WA 23:64–283; The Annotated Luther, vol. 3: Church and Sacraments, ed. Paul W. Robinson [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016], 163–274). Zwingli responded to Luther with Daß diese Worte: Das ist mein Leib usw. ewiglich den alten Sinn haben werden usw (1527; S 2.2:16–93; Z 5:805–977). Luther’s final written contribution to the debate was his book Vom Abendmahl Christi, Bekenntnis (1528; WA 26:241–509). Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius countered this tome with Über D. Martin Luthers Buch, Bekenntnis genannt (1528; Z 6.2:22–248).

2. The most comprehensive account of the controversy between Luther and Zwingli is in Walther Köhler, Zwingli und Luther. Ihr Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen, vol. 1, Die religiöse und politische Entwicklung bis zum Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529 (Leipzig, 1924); and vol. 2, Vom Beginn der Marburger Verhandlungen 1529 bis zum Abschluss der Wittenberger Konkordie 1536 (Gütersloh, 1953). The most detailed treatment of the controversy available in English is Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress, 1959). Whereas Köhler treats Zwingli more favorably, Sasse defends Luther’s stance.

3. This language appears in the seminal Lutheran confessions. See The Augsburg Confession 10.1; The Small Catechism 6.2; The Large Catechism 5.8; The Apology of the Augsburg Confession 10.

4. Luther wanted to reform Catholic sacramentalism, and Zwingli wanted to abandon it. Zwingli believed the sacraments were mere signs of grace, not vessels of it. See Sasse, This Is My Body, 164–177; Sasse, “The Lutheran Understanding of the Consecration,” in Hermann Sasse, We Confess, vol. 2, The Sacraments, trans. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1985), 113–138; W. P. Stephens, Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 76–84.

5. On the communication of properties (communicatio idiomatum) between Christ’s two natures, Luther contended that whatever one says of Christ’s divine nature is also applicable to his human nature. Zwingli made a sharper distinction between the properties of the natures. Consequently, Luther accused Zwingli of Nestorianism and Zwingli accused Luther of Eutychianism. See Ryan Tafilowski, “Marburg Colloquy,” in Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation, vol. 2, ed. Mark A. Lamport (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), 500; Z 5:930–932; S 2.2, 71; Sasse, This Is My Body, 121–122; Sasse, “The 1,500th Anniversary of Chalcedon,” in Hermann Sasse, We Confess, vol. 1, Jesus Christ, trans. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1984), 62–65; WA 26:332.

6. Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 531–534.

7. For Luther, “This sacrament is the Gospel” (Sasse, This Is My Body, 405; cf. 281). Luther’s emphasis on the sacramental nature of the Supper “led Zwingli to contrast two ways of salvation: the one by eating the flesh of Christ and the other by believing in him” (Stephens, Zwingli, 100). The former option was, for Zwingli, a return to papist religion that rendered the death of Christ unnecessary (Z 5:576, 659–661, 706–708).

8. Even if Luther and Zwingli had forged the union Philip wanted, these Magisterial Reformers still would have been at odds with the so-called “Radical Reformers” like the Anabaptists.

9. Alister McGrath identifies at least nineteen Protestant approaches to Darwin’s theory of evolution, all of which claim to be the correct interpretation of Scripture. See McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 208–209, 372–386.

10. See Michael Allen and Scott Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2015); Christopher W. Morgan, “Toward a Theology of the Unity of the Church,” in Why We Belong: Evangelical Unity and Denominational Diversity, ed. Anthony L. Chute, Christopher W. Morgan, and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 19–36; Curtis Freeman, Contesting Catholicity: Theology for Other Baptists (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014); Steven R. Harmon, Toward Baptist Catholicity (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006); Harmon, Ecumenism Means You, Too: Ordinary Christians and the Quest for Christian Unity (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2010); Peter J. Leithart, The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2016); and Luder G. Whitlock Jr., Divided We Fall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2017).

11. Kenneth Scott Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the International Missionary Council,” in A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948, 2nd ed., ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen C. Neil (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 353.

12. Timothy George, for example, contends for an “ecumenism of conviction, not an ecumenism of accommodation.” See “Baptists and Ecumenism: An Interview with Timothy George,” interview by Everett Berry and Winston Hottman, Center for Baptist Renewal, April 6, 2017, http://www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/blog/2017/4/6/baptists-and-ecumenism-a-discussion-with-timothy-george.

13. The historical theologian Gregg Allison suggests that evangelicals use the term gospel connectionalism instead of ecumenism so that evangelicals who pursue unity can (1) avoid the negative connotations of the ecumenical movement and (2) make the gospel the central element of their agreement (Gregg Allison, interview by author, Louisville, KY, September 8, 2016).

14. The term catholicity shares a very similar etymology to ecumenism (katholikēand oikoumenēboth speak to something universal).

15. This criticism appears in William R. Estep, Baptists and Christian Unity (Nashville: Broadman, 1966), 108–123.

16. John Wesley, “The Catholic Spirit,” in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, 14 vols. (London, 1872), 5:502.

17. See “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” First Things (May 1994); Timothy George and Thomas G. Guarino, eds., Evangelicals and Catholics Together at Twenty: Vital Statements on Contested Topics (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2014); R. C. Sproul, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie That Binds Evangelicals Together (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003).

18. See Karl Lehmann, Michael Root, and William G. Rusch, eds., Justification by Faith: Do the Sixteenth-Century Condemnations Still Apply? (London: Bloomsbury, 1997).

19. George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1984).

20. See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006); Alister E. McGrath, A Passion for Truth: The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 119–162.

21. See John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 688. MacArthur describes ecumenism as a strategy from Satan where “all sincere religions involve valid expressions of worshiping the true God.”

22. See Robert G. Torbet, Ecumenism: The Free Church Dilemma (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1968).

23. See John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London, 1893), 8. Accusing Protestants of being detached from history and tradition, the future Roman Catholic cardinal quipped, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

24. My working definition of evangelical leans heavily on the “Bebbington Quadrilateral” found in David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1989), 2–3. The four characteristics Bebbington identifies in all evangelicalism are: conversionism, the belief that lives can and should be changed through the gospel; biblicism, an unwavering commitment to the unique authority of Scripture; activism, the missionary and sociopolitical impetus of evangelical ministry; and crucicentrism, the emphasis on Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the cross.

25. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (New York: Doubleday, 2012), 31. “Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture . . . flowing out of the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal. . . . Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

26. Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2012).

Part One

Why We Disagree about Doctrine

We Read Imperfectly

General Hermeneutics and the Clarity of Scripture

Protestants and evangelicals who quarrel over Christian doctrine and practice read the same Bible, the same sixty-six-book canon.1 We may hail from divergent denominations or traditions, but we claim a common authority. We may have particular ways of doing church but all appeal to the same standard to defend our distinctive practices. We sometimes need to go our separate ways because we can’t agree about the implications of the gospel, but all of us want to get the gospel right. We who affirm the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura agree, at least in principle, that Scripture is the supreme source and only guiding norm of Christian theology.

As evangelicals, we long to be “biblical” in what we teach and practice. We want our doctrine—our normative expression of Christian truth—to be rooted in the Bible. We all agree Scripture should have the final word in our disputes, but Scripture must be interpreted (Neh. 8:8; Acts 8:30). We want to be obedient to God’s voice in the text and sensitive to the Spirit’s leading, but even those shared desires do not guarantee uniformity in our interpretations of Scripture. Something about our reading (or our nature) keeps us from coming into the Bible in the same way, from making the same judgments about the text. Though we eagerly await the future day in which all of our hindrances to knowing God fully are removed, now, in the interim period, we see the written word of God through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12).2

Theologians have long recognized the role our interpretive differences play in doctrinal diversity. The fifth-century Gallic theologian Vincent of Lérins said, “All do not accept [Scripture] in one and the same sense. . . . One understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.”3 Interpretive diversity—and the ever-present threat of heresy—led Vincent to believe “the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”4 Though Vincent believed Scripture to be a sufficient source of divine revelation in need of no other additional content, he suggested interpreters read the Bible with church tradition so they wouldn’t become heretics. Building on this germ of an idea, later medieval theologians insisted the church needed a formal teaching office to decipher the meaning of Scripture and the will of God for the people.5

The Reformers gave neither the church nor tradition such primacy in biblical interpretation. They conceded the potential for human error in individual interpreters, but they also realized the magisterium and church councils were also made up of people prone to the same kinds of mistakes.6 Luther and the other Reformers maintained Scripture is clearenough

Tausende von E-Books und Hörbücher

Ihre Zahl wächst ständig und Sie haben eine Fixpreisgarantie.

Sie haben über uns geschrieben: