Theological Triage - Maintaining the Unity of the Faith

Hello and welcome to The Dividing Line for today. My name is Pastor John Sampson of King's Church in Peoria, California.

The Call to Walk Worthily and Preserve the Unity of the Spirit

But I want to read verses 1 through verse 6. And I'll say now what I say always at the church. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Word of God. I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called.

With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 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.

Why Theological Triage Matters

I want to ask you this question. Have you ever had need to visit a hospital emergency room? It's quite the experience. I had to do so a couple of years back with some really horrendous, as I saw it, stomach pains.

And after providing your name and address and information, the person behind the desk asks you to state exactly what's going on, what the problem is, what your symptoms are. Then, rather than getting immediate attention from a doctor or someone who's got medical expertise, usually you're asked to wait, sometimes a long time.

Sometimes there's no wait at all. Sometimes the wait is short. At other times, it can be hours before you're called. And the reason for that is it's not a normal waiting area. There's something going on.

People are called to have their needs met in order, not in order of the way they came into the room. It's not on a time basis here in the ER. Something else is going on. It's called triage. I remember an article that was written, I think it was July 2005, by Dr. Al Moller on this theme of triage.

He related that kind of an analogy to theological triage. He writes this, Triage is a process that allows trained personnel to make a quick evaluation of relative medical urgency. Given the chaos of an emergency room's reception area, someone must be armed with the medical expertise to make an immediate determination of medical priority.

Which patients should be rushed into surgery? Which patients can wait for a less urgent examination? Medical personnel cannot flinch from asking these questions and from taking responsibility to give the patients with the most critical needs top priority in terms of treatment.

Dr. Moller is absolutely right. Someone entering the ER who's just stepped on a landmine should have priority over someone with a sprained wrist. Now, in the same way, in the theological world, Christians must, they need to understand the difference between what we call first order doctrines or teachings, where to hold a different position or an errant position precludes someone from actually being a brother or sister in Christ.

And then second tier or even third order doctrines, issues on which genuine Christians can disagree and yet still be saved, still be genuine Christians. In other words, we need to understand the difference between bad doctrine and heresy.

Heresy, I'm using with a capital H here, something that puts us outside of orthodoxy, the bounds of orthodoxy. It was, I believe, Augustine who said this, although if you dig deep into the history of this quote, it's not absolutely apparent that he was the first one to say this, but it's often attributed to him, this particular phrase, in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, charity, which is the old English word for love.

Let me read it again, in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, charity. It's important we understand the difference between essentials and non-essentials. B .B. Warfield said this, if everything that is called Christianity in these days is Christianity, then there is no such thing as Christianity, a name applied indiscriminately to everything designates nothing.

He's right about that. If everything is Christianity, then what is Christianity? There's nothing to be said of it. Mike Riccardi writes this on this particular theme, all biblical doctrine or teaching, the word doctrine just simply means teaching, all biblical doctrine is important.

I'd go so far as to say all biblical doctrine is essential. It's difficult to put any doctrine into a second or third tier. God doesn't reveal what he's revealed to us of himself graciously, didn't have to, but he's done so, and we are responsible to believe everything he's revealed.

We have no right to say, I'll take this about what you've revealed, and I'll ignore this, or I won't believe this. No, we are responsible to believe all that is Theopneustos, God breathed, what God has revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures.

And yet, there are some things that are more important than others, and we see that from the Scriptures themselves. Mike Riccardi goes on, but employing theological triage doesn't mean that everything that's not first order is unimportant any more than a doctor prioritizing a gunshot would necessarily think a sprained ankle is unimportant.

But the fact remains, genuine Christians can disagree on things like the mode and recipients of baptism. But if two people disagree on the triunity of God, that's the Holy Trinity, one is a Christian and the other isn't.

Phil Johnson says this, a lot of quotes here at the beginning. Common sense makes it crystal clear to most people that some truths in Scripture are of primary importance and other truths are less vital.

He writes this, for example, most people would agree that the deity of Christ is an essential doctrine of Christianity. Jesus himself says this in the Gospel of John, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

That's pretty clear, isn't it? He's speaking of himself in deity. You must believe the right thing about me, Jesus said, or else you'll not be saved. You'll die in your sins. So he writes this, Phil Johnson again.

Most people would agree that the deity of Christ is an essential doctrine of Christianity, but Sabbatarianism is not. In other words, committed Christians might differ among themselves on the question of whether or how rigorously the Old Testament Sabbath restrictions should apply to Christians on the Lord's Day.

But authentic Christians do not disagree on whether Jesus is divine, God. Again, common sense is sufficient for most people to recognize the validity of some distinction between primary and secondary truths.

And it seems to me that the distinction between primary and secondary doctrines is implicit rather than explicit in Scripture, but I think the distinction is still very clear. I would absolutely agree.

Here's what the Scripture says. Now the Spirit, talking of the Holy Spirit, expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith. Not from faith. People will be believing a whole manner of things.

But they will depart from the faith, talking of the Christian faith, by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons. This is not to say that someone who speaks about what the Bible says about demons is then speaking something in error.

It's speaking of the source of the teaching, the teaching that has its source in the demonic. 1 Timothy 4 verse 1. 2 Peter 2 verse 1 says this. It speaks of damnable heresies. That's the King James Version.

Destructive heresies are the more modern translations of demon. These are doctrines, teachings, that if believed, damn the soul. Now, we need to understand this because on the essentials, as Augustine said, I believe rightly, there must be unity and we need to understand that.

But secondary doctrines, although important, do not damn the soul. That's the distinction we're making. The Bible speaks of damnable heresies. There's things that are error and there are things that damn the soul.

Christians are notorious for not understanding what we're talking about here because they will divide and call someone not a brother over the most minute things. As much as I really honor and value and esteem someone like Martin Luther, God used him in an amazing way in the Reformation.

I'm one of the first to talk about it. I love talking about what God brought to the church through Martin Luther, but he was a vessel who was imperfect, not infallible. Really, what was happening at the same time as was happening to him in Germany, in Switzerland, another man was being raised up called Ulrich Zwingli.

What was happening was God was restoring the biblical gospel to the people of God and a great reformation was taking place in both countries. These two great leaders met together and they talked about a number of doctrines.

I think it was in the teens. I can't remember the exact amount of material that they were talking about. They agreed on every but one point. The point of dispute, even though they believed in the deity of Christ and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, they understood the gospel together.

They disagreed, didn't come to unity on the issue of the Lord's Supper, and Martin Luther would not even shake Ulrich Zwingli's hand, wouldn't call him a brother, call him another spirit. That's a sadness.

That's just about everybody I've read who've discussed this event. Speak of it with sadness because if they had been able to say, we disagree on this point on exactly what is happening in the Lord's Supper, but on everything else, we're united.

You're my brother. You're my sister. In Christ, those who held the same things, the Lutherans and then those who were of Zwingli in that sense of the same doctrines, at least. Many believe that the Reformation could have in unity penetrated Spain, but it was not the case and Spain remained Roman Catholic, very much the case.

There's a sadness about that. Although Martin Luther was used by God dramatically because of his bullheadedness against the Pope and against anyone else who would dispute what the Word of God said, it's a sad point of church history that he was not able to recognize Zwingli as a brother in Christ.

Such is the case in our day. We need to understand the distinction between big things and while important things, less than big things in terms of division in the body of Christ. Let's go to Matthew 23 for a moment and see the words of Jesus.

He writes, well, Matthew writes this of Jesus, quoting him. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. Don't you just love Jesus? Meek and mild. These were not words that if they had refrigerators there, the Pharisees would have put on their fridges.

Beautiful words from the lips of Jesus. What did he say? Woe to you, hypocrites. Nope. Here's why, Jesus said. For you tithe, mint, and dill, and cumin. These were really plants. And have neglected the weightier matters of the law.

Hear that phrase? The weightier matters of the law. Justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others. He said it wasn't wrong that you tithed on every tenth petal that came into your house.

There's nothing wrong with that. I'm endorsing that. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides straining out a gnat, that's a G-N-A-T, and swallowing a camel. I think that's terrific humor even though he's making a very strident and strong point here.

Straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. I think it's clear from these words Jesus was suggesting that some errors are gnats and some are camels. The point, some are minute and some are gigantic in comparison.

He speaks of the weightier matters of the law. Some matters of the law are weightier than others. Think about the implications of that. The distinction between a gnat and a camel. And such is the case regarding doctrine.

Some things are camels. Some things are gnats. We need to know the difference. The Apostle Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 15 of doctrines that are of first importance. Now again, we're talking implicit rather than explicit.

But I think it's very easy to make the connection between something that is of first importance and then say, well, if something is of first importance, there must be something that is of secondary importance.

I don't think we're reading into the Scriptures too much to make that assertion. In 1 Corinthians 15, we read these very famous words from our Apostle, the Apostle Paul. 1 Corinthians 15 and verse 1. Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you, as of first importance, what I also received, that Christ Jesus died for our sins. That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and then he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, and so it goes on.

Just making the point here. According to the Apostle Paul, the gospel and the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, these are things that are of first importance. 1 John 4, 1. In other words, the false prophet is someone who denies the incarnation, that there really was the second person of the Trinity becoming flesh.

John 1, verse 1. Someone who denies that. That's someone who is speaking as a false prophet. They deny the full humanity of Christ. It's interesting that in the first century, the attack upon Christology, the person of Christ, was in the realm of his humanity.

Many would believe he is divine, but not human. He would be walking along a beach, perhaps, and would not leave a footprint in the sand, because he wasn't really man. That was the idea influenced by Greek thinking that matter is evil, spirit is good, and therefore God couldn't become, in any way, enmeshed with something as evil as the flesh.

And the Apostle John points out, no, no, no. He came in the flesh. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. And every spirit, verse 3, that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Many religions deny the incarnation. And according to the Apostle John, that is the spirit of Antichrist in operation.

So we're seeing this from our study so far. Certain issues are described as essential. Others are less so. I would say this. The gospel is essential, absolutely essential. Doctrines that make works, in any way, a part of our justification, in the sense of we have to do things other than simply have faith in Christ, that is a false gospel.

Justification by Faith Alone and the Gospel of Galatians

Now, already we're into deep waters. And I remember a gentleman I respected greatly. I was converted as a teenager in the city of Chester in England. There was an Anglican minister who was very, very influential in my life at the time.

And about five years ago, keeping in touch with him, I came to see that he was having ecumenical meetings with Roman Catholics and having retreats with them often. And I asked him, what kind of things do you talk about?

Do you talk about justification? Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. These are spirit-filled brothers and sisters in Christ. And I said, well, if they're Roman Catholics, do they go back to their Roman Catholic churches and share what the gospel is?

No, we don't get into that. We're united in Christ. And I said, I couldn't attend that meeting of yours. I couldn't go with you. Sorry. And he was very flummoxed by this and very perturbed. And he came back to me a couple of days later after this conversation and said, I had a little picture.

And I'm always a bit wary now of someone who's got a little picture. He said, I had a picture of Jesus with a clipboard. And this is what I think you're saying, John, that Jesus stands at the doorway of our meetings with a clipboard and making sure that we can check.

And in England, we'd say tick. Here, it's related to the word tick off, and that's not something that's a positive thing. But we tick or we check off certain doctrines. And only when you could fill in all of the questions with the right checkmark would Jesus allow you into the assembly.

And I thought about it for a moment. I say, may I reply? He said, yes. I said, just one word's necessary, Galatians. I said, if the book of Galatians is inspired by God, which I believe it is, there's Jesus with a clipboard.

It's the apostle Paul saying, you add anything to the gospel and it's not a gospel at all. You read Galatians chapter 1. And if there was a mailman delivering the letter of Paul to the Galatians, he must have had asbestos gloves.

He must have been able to handle the fieriness of this letter that stormed from the quill of Paul. What amazing words are in chapters 1 and 2 regarding the truth of the gospel and standing for it. He said, even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than what we've preached to you, let him be anathema, under the eternal curse of God.

And the way of exclamation in the ancient world was not to put an exclamation mark or to underline, but to say it repeatedly. And that's exactly what he did. He said, I've said it once, I'm saying it again.

Even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be eternally condemned, accursed, anathema, anathema. I didn't hear back from this man. In fact, he unfriended me on Facebook, which is the ultimate, as you know.

And I thought about it afterwards. I thought if he was Facebook friends with Luther and Calvin and Spurgeon, he'd be unfriending them too. I'd be standing with them and saying, no, we have no unity with our Roman Catholic friends.

We can call them friends perhaps in this modern day. In certain eras of the church, that would have been impossible too. But we could not call them brothers or sisters in Christ because there's a different gospel at work.

Rome teaches that we are justified by grace plus works, plus human merit. It's grace plus, it's Christ plus. And for the reformers, it was grace alone. Anyone can speak of grace. Anyone can speak of faith.

Anyone can speak of Christ. But the reformers with the solas, as you know, spoke of grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone. That's how we're justified in the sight of God. Paul distinguished between the foundation upon which is to be built the things of God in 1 Corinthians 3.

And that foundation is Christ. No other foundation can be laid. That's an essential of the faith. Regarding lesser matters, observance of days in Romans 14, he writes this. One man esteems one day above another.

Another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. I find that astonishing because this is Paul with his quill. He's just written the most magnificent declaration in any part of scripture of the gospel.

He's on a roll, so to speak. And yet, he doesn't say, now, this is how you should view observation of the Sabbath here, observation of days. He just says, one person thinks this, another person thinks that.

Here's my apostolic command. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. And the whole context of Romans 14 is never do anything that would violate the conscience. Be convinced. Be absolutely convinced.

Let everyone. Now, later on, I think it's very clear what his stand is and was. Colossians 2 speaks very clearly to that issue. But it's interesting to me that he says, let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind.

He's not saying, you must believe this. This is an essential of the faith. And if you disagree, you must divide. Not at all. Not at all. Be fully convinced, though. Be fully convinced. Where do we go with all this?

Essential Doctrines: Soteriology, the Trinity, Christology, Pneumatology, and Scripture

Well, there are, I believe, essential doctrines of the faith. Let's just outline a few of them. We've talked about the gospel. Theologically, the word would be soteriology, from the Greek word soter, which means to save.

And we have to start there because the Bible does. And things like the Apostles' Creed have been used through the centuries to provide a declaration of that which is most important. But there's not everything that is essential in the Apostles' Creed.

There's no real understanding of justification by faith alone there in the Apostles' Creed. I embrace it. I embrace my fellow brother and sister, if they can outline and agree to the Apostles' Creed. But I would also say, where are they on the gospel?

I think reading Galatians, justification by faith alone needs to be part of what we call an essential doctrine. The Roman Catholic denial of sola fide, faith alone, it's a false doctrine, and the guns of Rome still exist with their eternal anathemas against anyone who would speak of justification by faith alone.

And until that takes place, there's no basis for unity. At the Council of Trent, I believe, unintentionally, let's believe the best of these people, unintentionally, they put their eternal anathema, Rome did, on the gospel, on the gospel itself.

On lesser matters, and I'm saying it in the light of it still being important, we can agree to disagree and still have fellowship. I love the fact that there are men of God like John MacArthur on one side of the United States and R .C. Sproul on the other, but they can come together in conferences, speak at each other's churches, do great ministry together, but they disagree on certain non-essential matters, though very important.

For instance, John MacArthur would believe in credo baptism, someone who would affirm belief in Christ and then would be baptized, whereas R .C. Sproul would allow for that, but also would speak of infant baptism, and there's a divide there.

I remember hearing of a church in Asia where on the elders' team there was a disagreement on this issue, and everyone was heralding the fact that there was unity even though there was disagreement on this particular issue.

What was interesting was it became problematic because when a couple had a child, who do they go to? When one elder would say, don't do anything right now. We can dedicate the baby. We can pray for you as parents.

We can stand with you, but we need to wait for this child to come to the place where they can affirm their trust and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and then be baptized at a later age. Then another elder would say, we can baptize straight away, and the unity crumbled.

Now, what I'm saying is this. I believe that what is true about John MacArthur and R .C. Sproul needs to be true of us as Christians. I've heard Sproul say, and I've heard MacArthur affirm the fact that if one could convince the other from Scripture of the truth of their position and get the other person to see what the Scripture says and agree on it, they believe that the other person would change immediately.

Now, they've yet to be able to do that, but it means that they believe the best of each other, and that's a wonderful thing. They can have unity at a conference and preach the gospel because they are agreed on the essentials.

But it would be problematic if both John MacArthur and R .C. Sproul were on the same eldership team, and that's why these disagreements allow for the difference of denominations. And I think it's a good thing until we all come to the unity of the faith, which is something, again, outlined in Ephesians 4.

We are to maintain unity, keep unity with our fellow Christians so we can agree and hug each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. But having a denomination that allows for credo baptism allows John MacArthur to do and believe what he believes Scripture says, and it allows R .C. Sproul to do what he believes.

And they cannot serve as elders together in the same church, even though they're elders in the body of Christ. And both would affirm that the other is a Christian. We need to understand that. We can have essential unity and yet have liberty on the non-essential matters to understand the difference between those two things.

Regarding God, there needs to be an understanding of the Trinity and a belief in it for us to say, you're my brother, you're my sister. I think that's clear. I had an incident about 15 years ago. A couple were leaving Phoenix where I was pastoring and were moving north and had to do so very, very quickly.

Normally, the best case scenario is to go to the place and find a church before you find your house. And that should be the first thing on your priority list. I need to find a good Bible-believing church for the sake of my soul and the sake of my family as the husband, father, if that's the one making the decision, if he's the head of the house there.

But anyway, they had gone to this state. It was north of Arizona, most states in the Union are. So he was asking me, would you give me some advice about church? And I said, sure. He says, there's three churches we're looking at.

We like these three that we found online. Would you take a look? And the first thing I do, not the second, not the third, the first thing I do is go to a church's statement of faith. That will tell me a lot.

If it's fuzzy and mushy, I think, hmm, what are they not saying? That's not clear. Or else, if they are clear, that's good. And I want to make sure that they are not clearly heretics. Well, of the three that were given to me, one was fuzzy on the Trinity in my mind because the phrase that should normally appear would be, we believe in one God and three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That's the orthodox view of the Trinity. It didn't say that. It spoke of manifestations. It said, we believe in one God manifested as Father, Son, and Spirit. And knowing what the ancient heresy of modalism is, I thought that sounds very much like that.

And I just said, of this third church, I'm concerned. I don't think they're Trinitarians. They're using a phrase and a term that is often associated with modalism, the idea that God is one person but functions in three different modes.

It's like on a stage. Sometimes he appears as Father in the play and sometimes as Son, sometimes as the Spirit. But there's not three persons in the one Godhead. And so I said, if you're able to have a talk with the pastor, just ask him directly.

I've read your statement of faith. Do you believe in the Trinity? And just hear what he says. Well, I got an email a couple of days later saying that they went to the church and they asked the pastor that, and he denied the Trinity.

He said, no, we don't believe that here. We want to be biblical. Oh, yeah, sure. Well, that meant they had the choice then of the first two. And for many people, those issues are just not essential. But I believe biblically I cannot worship in a church that does not affirm the Trinity.

I cannot listen to music that comes from a group that denies the Trinity. I don't think Paul would have had the Judaizers sing at his outreach meetings elsewhere. The gospel is essential. The Trinity is essential, essential doctrine.

The person of Christ, he's fully God, fully man. We call that Christology. In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul tells the Corinthians that the false apostles are proclaiming to them another Jesus. And it results in a different spirit and another gospel.

That's always the case. There's only one Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible. And that's why the Jesus of Mormonism cannot save, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot save, the Jesus of Islam cannot save. It's not the biblical Jesus.

Arianism, full-blown, is really, though there's certain slight distinctions, it's seen in the Jehovah's Witness faith today. Pneumatology, that's a big word. The word pneuma, P-N-E-U-M-A, is the Greek word that means spirit.

And so it's speaking of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. We can't forget the third member of the Trinity in all of the essentials. And the Holy Spirit is God, just as the Father and the Son of God.

And he's a person. The Holy Spirit is a person, not a force, not merely an influence. He's at times likened to wind. In John 3, that's the case. Other times he's likened to water. But he's not wind, and he's not water.

And he's not a dove. He's a person. He can be lied to, according to Acts 5, 3, and 4. The Holy Spirit speaks, Acts 13, verse 2. He sends missionaries, Acts 13, verse 4. He prophesies, Acts 21, 11. He knows the thoughts of God, speaking of the Father, 1 Corinthians 2, 11.

And the Holy Spirit can be grieved, Ephesians 4, verse 30. Electricity can't be grieved. It's a force. It's not a person. But the Holy Spirit can be grieved. In context there, it's talking about the way we speak and our manner of communication can be grieving to the Holy Spirit.

Force can do none of those things. Only persons can. To deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit is to deny something fundamentally true about the Holy Spirit's nature, and that is to deny the Holy Spirit himself, that he's God, that he eternally existed with the Father and the Son, co-equal, co-eternal with Father and Son.

So we must believe the Trinity, must believe the right thing about Christ and about our Bible. I think that's an essential. I do believe that God gives grace for those who have been influenced by false teaching and there's a real attack upon the Scripture.

But behind every assault on Scripture is that serpent of old from the garden. Hath God really said? That was the first question in the universe, John chapter 3, and it's a question that is often on the lips of the serpent in our day as well, the serpent being Satan himself.

We should be very clear the Bible is God speaking to us, and that's Jesus' view of the Bible. Anytime we go down from that, from that high view, like standing on Everest and looking down, that's the high view Jesus had of the Scripture.

The Scripture cannot be broken. There's not one word that will fail to come to pass. Not one word will fall to the ground. It's the eternal Word of God. It's God speaking to us. The Bible is God speaking to us.

Understanding this, some will say, but this kind of confirms all I've thought. Doctrine divides. Well, yes, it does. It divides truth from error. It divides the true teacher from the false teacher, the true prophet, using that word in a different way from the charismatic type of prophet, but the one who speaks for God and the one who does not.

Doctrine divides the spirit of truth from the spirit of error, the true Christ from the antichrist. So in the church, there are Christians with differing views that, while important, are nonessential, things like eschatology, the end times.

It's very hard to get Dr. James White to speak about eschatology, and it took quite some remarkable, I don't know what the right word would be, but a lot of probing and a lot of effort for him to say, I am an amillennial, and then that's all he said about it, and off we go to defend the faith against every attack on the planet.

But that's because, for him, it's not something he majors in, but it's also not something that we should divide over. I remember doing a dividing line show some years back, not too long ago, when someone approached me by way of email and said, enjoyed your guest hosting on the dividing line, and I'd like to visit your church, but first, before I come, what's your view on eschatology?

I remember hearing of a minister who was arriving in a certain place, and as he got off the plane, that was the first question before he was coming to this church he'd been invited to speak at. They said, so are you a, pre, or post?

Talking about his millennial position. Amillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial? And his answer was, that's a preposterous question, and I'm not going to answer it, and I thought that was funny. Very, very good, but I believe it's good to have a position on that, but I wouldn't divide with a fellow Christian over it.

I stated my position in the email. I am amillennial, and I got the reply then very, very quickly that he wouldn't be coming to visit the church. Knowing that that was the case, I thought I've got nothing to lose anyway.

I'm going to push back a little bit, and I thought, if you have any understanding of church history, it would mean this. If we take it to its logical conclusion, you might be three or four doors down from Martin Luther's church in Wittenberg, Germany, and you wouldn't visit his church, even though God is using him more than any other across all of Europe, because he has a different position than you.

This particular gentleman was premillennial. Martin Luther was not. Would it be the case then you couldn't show up at John Calvin's church in Geneva? He was kind of the generation, although there's a little bit of interplay, he was the generation after Luther in Switzerland, in Geneva.

If you live four doors down from Calvin's church, you couldn't visit because he has a different view. He's not premillennial. Jonathan Edwards couldn't go to his church. He wasn't premillennial. Do you see we're straining a gnat and we're swallowing a camel?

The big picture is Christians are agreed on the big picture in eschatology. That is, Christ is coming back. He's coming back the second time, the details of which we can disagree with. I think it's good to teach on it and have a position.

I think it's good for elders to have a position, because if you're going to teach the Bible, you can't just say, I'm not going to talk about a third of our Bibles here because it's eschatology. No, we're called upon to declare the whole counsel of God.

I believe there is a biblical position. I used to be premillennial myself and understand that very, very deeply. It was ingrained in me, and I've come to a different understanding. But I can still shake hands with anyone who has a different eschatological position than me, other than the full hyper-preterist who believes that everything that will happen has happened.

We've already entered into the eternal age, and this is as good as it gets, and everything happened in AD 70. No, that's actually heretical. I put it in that category. It would not affirm even what we would see in the Apostles' Creed.

We're still waiting for the resurrection of the body, and all Christians would agree with that. Christ is yet to come the second time. So there we are. Doctrine does divide, but let me tell you this, doctrine unites.

What unites us vastly outweighs what divides us. In essentials such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, we need to be in agreement.

But for some, not believing in a pre-trib rapture is the ultimate heresy. Really? So Martin Luther and Calvin and these guys, they're not even Christians? That would be the logical conclusion because they weren't pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture people.

They weren't. They were not. Augustine went on to say, in non-essentials liberty, Christians need to allow their brothers and sisters' room to hold differing positions on some issues without breaking fellowship with them, and that takes a great deal of maturity.

Christian church history shows us that the body of Christ as a whole has not been very good at this. We tend to disassociate ourselves from Christians who don't have the exact same understanding of the spiritual gifts, the end times, divine election, or even when a child is old enough to be baptized.

Divine Election and the Unity of the Church

Let's talk about divine election. I've met people who think Calvinists are heretics because they have a different view of the will, different view of election and how God elects. When we think of the big hitters in church history, we're talking about, I would say, Augustine in the first millennia of the church, the Martin Luther, the John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, Whitefield, these kind of people.