An exchange of comments over at Dan’s place raised a question which I – as the self-appointed guardian of truth in the world – feel compelled to answer. Here are the comments, stemming from Dan’s white flag post about which I wrote below. My interaction was with Jim from Old Truth. I wrote:

Well, Bill may be afraid to speak for Dan, but I’m not!

Jim at OT wrote:

    I assume that you feel that your beliefs and doctrinal views are correct, are pleasing to the Lord, and that you have a bullet proof case for them from a scriptural standpoint.

I don’t think Dan feels “bulletproof” at all: I believe he feels that, while he firmly holds to his positions and beliefs, he is fallible and could be wrong. He is open to correction and growth. In a word, he is humble. It’s the bloggers with “bullet-proof” beliefs that cause most of the trouble. Dan’s saying it’s a waste of time and a bad witness. I agree.

To which Jim replied,

Dr. Mike writes:

    “It’s the bloggers with ‘bullet-proof’ beliefs that cause most of the trouble”.

Do you have a problem with “ALL certainty of belief”, or are you making that statement based on your own subjective opinion of what people should be allowed to have firm beliefs on? For example: I assume that you are certain of the Incarnation and Resurrection, and I’m guessing that you would defend those certainties on your own blog (if you have one).

Dr. Mike says: “Dan’s saying it’s a waste of time and a bad witness. I agree.”

Again though, that’s based on your opinion of where the line should be drawn, relating to what you think is worth making bold assertions about. Perhaps there are some who feel that other biblical doctrines are certain, and are worth defending. One example being Sola Scriptura. That may not be a belief that you want to die on a hill for, but for others it is extremely important.

I had written a lengthy response but Blogger thought it best to lose my comment, so here I am back at WordPress where things tend not to disappear so easily.

The important question Jim raises, and which I want to address, is what constitutes a non-negotiable teaching and what is – if not negotiable, then at least – a tolerable, different teaching. First, however, let me clarify something that may have created confusion to begin with.

When I used the term “bullet-proof” beliefs, I meant (in that context) beliefs to which the individual dogmatically and rigidly adheres. No amount of biblical or theological argumention is going to move them one bit: such “bullet-proof” beliefs are impervious to change and resistant to any proofs to the contrary. Jim, I think, meant it in a different sense, and that is the subject of this post.

For me, an essential doctrine or teaching is one for which there is no biblical or theological argument to the contrary. The incarnation of Christ, the deity of Christ, the five solas, the resurrection, and such are examples of essential teachings. No legitimate exegesis and interpretation can be drawn from the Bible to argue to the contrary.

Non-essentials, however, are different; non-essentials have biblical arguments which can be made. For example, although I believe in eternal security I am familiar with and respect the arguments made by those who believe in eternal insecurity an Arminian view. Godly theologians disagree on such matters and are able to present valid arguments to support their beliefs. They do not have to resort to extra-biblical support or argumentation to make their point.

(Of course, the question of what constitutes a “valid” argument re-introduces the arbitrariness of the matter, but validity is easier to deal with than strictly subjective lines in the sand.)

The question of cessationism is similar. I have a particular belief regarding the matter of which I am quite convinced. But I have also read and studied the other side: I disagree with some of the opposing conclusions or interpretations, but I respect their scholarship and subsequent beliefs. I don’t think I’m wrong, but I could be persuaded otherwise were someone able to elucidate an argument that shifted the preponderance of support to the other side.

To summarize, essentials cannot be argued against from a biblical or theological perspective; non-essentials can be supported in more than one way (e.g., premil, amil, postmil eschatology). I will go to the wall for the essentials – as I believe both Dan and Jim would – but not for the non-essentials. One can be an amil, charismatic, Arminian and live a godly, God-glorifying life. I see no need to try to argue them out of their belief system.

Now, if they want to learn the truth, I’d be happy to . . .


2 Cor 1:13