I have done this post before, but always enjoy the conversation it brings.
Here would be my (current) primary, secondary, and tertiary issues:
PRIMARY:
- Trinity
- Hypostatic Union
- Christ’s Resurrection
- Christ’s Second-Coming
- Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture
- The Virgin Birth
- Subsitutionary Atonement
- Justification by Faith Alone
SECONDARY
- Calvinism/Arminianism
- Cessationsim/Continuationism/Charismaticism
- Believer’s/Infant Baptism
- Women in Ministry
- Denomination (usually informed by secondary issues within Orthodoxy)
TERTIARY
- Church polity
- Earth-Age
- Eschatology (pre/a/post-millennialism, etc.)
___________________________________
What does your list look like? Any agreements or disagreements with mine?
I like your lists, but lists are secondary to me.
🙂
The primary category (what I called Brick Walls) is pretty clear. But the other two categories are less so.
For instance, church polity is a denominational divider, which would put it in the second category. However, some polity issues would be lesser. Same is true of cessationism. It is only second category if we make it a test of fellowship. The practice of tongues in a church is probably in that category, but I had a great deacon in my first church who was “full gospel.”
I would consider affirmation of the following to be absolutely primary:
Apostle’s Creed
Athanasian Creed
Definition of Chalcedon
Nicene Creed
For other doctrines, I am not sure.
I would take issue with putting cessationalism and noncessationalism in the Secondary issues category. I think it’s tertiary in some instances, particularly if those who are noncessationalists are also non-practicing (like myself) and there is no public expression of gifts (or rule against doing so) in the Church where both of these positions reside.
If you are using the Mohler Triage, the difference between Level 2 and Level 3 doctrines is that Level 2 cannot be in disagreement in the same Church and Level 3 can. I think both cessationists and noncessationists can be in the same Church if the conditions above exist.
The same is somewhat true of Calvinists and Arminians, if by Arminians you mean those who affirm Eternal Security, but reject any or all of the other 4 points of Calvinism. So it may be better to put “Eternal Secuity/Apostasy” on the list under Secondary and put “Calvinism/non-Calvinism” on the list of Level 3 doctrines.
Finally, Church polity could be Secondary if the distinction is betweek Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational. But it is certainly Tertiary if the distinction is just various expressions of Congregationalism (just taught on this on Monday night and realized that the problem many have is that they don’t understand the basic fundamentals and distinctions of each of the three basic forms of Church Gov’t – this is why some who are ignorant of these issues call autonomous Churches that are elder-led “Presbyterians”).
Primary: Yankees vs. Red Sox
Disdain for SEC in general and BAMA in particular
Secondary: All NFL games – because who cares about the NFL.
Tertiary: Rangers vs. Cardinals.
Another good comment section down the drain!
Thereby establishing, once for all, that I cannot have fellowship with Dave Miller, as his wrong-headed view of Yankees vs. Red Sox demonstrates something not at all good.
And disdain for BAMA is essential, while disdain for the rest of the SEC is secondary, unless expressed towards the Fellowship of the Hog, in which case it’s like being a Yankees fan: I can only hope you get right before you die.
Because after you’re dead, you won’t care about sports at all.
What about the doctrine of Discipleship as a primary? It is active, not static. Each one needs something that is active.
But the whole point of doctrinal triage is not whether a doctrine is important, but whether disagreement over that doctrine requires separation or (at some level) condemnation. Those who deny the Trinity or promote salvation by works or religious ritual are denying the faith and a strong reaction to that is required.
Disagreements over tertiary issues are not unimportant, but we need not divide over them.
So, discipleship is important, even crucial, but it doesn’t really fall into the primary category, because we all believe that Discipleship is necessary. The question there is a matter of how.
Make sense?
DAVID, here is something to think about:
An interesting comment from Athanasius:
“no doctrine about the atonement is as relevant as the fact of the atonement.”
The idea being that some events in the Mystery of Christ may be seen in different ways resulting in differing doctrines,
but the ORIGINAL event itself stands out on its own as having happened.
The implications of doctrinal understanding may be formed in different ways, but like the mystery of the Holy Trinity, may never be fully comprehended in this earthly life.
When viewed from this perspective, it becomes easier to see what is important and shared among all Christian people,
and what is specific to our human comprehension and therefore incomplete in our own understanding of what is enfolded in the Mystery of Christ.
I can recommend ‘Mere Christianity’ by C.S. Lewis as a thoughtful exploration of what is ‘primary’ and what is not.
Excellent point.
Yes, it makes sense and I agree.
I could add Elder Rule to the list above in the tertiary.
Primary: Virgin Birth, resurrection, atonement, salvation by grace, trinity
Secondary: Baptism, inspiration/authority of scripture, evangelism
Tertiary: everything else
I would think first-order doctrines ought to be those things upon which all branches of Christianity agree. Secondary issues is what split families and/or clans of Christians. Third-order things ought to be those with which we can disagree and still fellowship. Here’s my list
Primary: Divides Christians from non-Christians
Trinity (Nicea and Constantinople)
Hypostatic Union (Ephesus and Chalcedon)
Bible as the Word of God
Historical affirmation of Jesus’ life and events
The “grand story” of Christianity
Secondary: Divides traditions and denominations
Justification by faith
Role of tradition
Implications of hypostatic union
Church ordinances and government
Tertiary: Disagreement while fully fellowshipping
Atonement models
Eschatological framework
Length of time in Gen 1-2
God’s providence (Calvinism and Arminianism)
Sign gifts
I moved atonement models down because there are many of them, and almost all have their roots in Scripture. That atonement occurs is a primary issue, but how it occurs to me is tertiary.
Jim G.
Jim,
I would only disagree in that substitutionary atonement is vital because, otherwise, Christ did not take the wrath upon Himself which would leave us still condemned… a denial of sub. atonement is chasing heresy rather quickly, in my opinion.
Hi Brandon,
I understand what you are saying, and notice I am not denying any substitutionary nature in the atonement. I’m just saying it is not the only way to see it. As a matter of fact, I see Christus Victor, moral influence, substitution, and a measure of satisfaction all present, all at the same time.
Since all these motifs are present, it stands to reason that different Christians at different times will stress one motif beyond the others. I think that is perfectly legitimate as long as we do not deny any of them. As long as all motifs are present, I believe it to be a tertiary issue.
Hope that clarifies.
Jim G.
Jim, that does make sense. I think the different motifs together represent a fuller picture of what happened.