Doctrine Archives - Page 8 of 8

The essential nature of man

There is a well-known saying attributed to St. Augustine; ‘In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity’.

In the context of Christian theology this usually means that we should not argue about or divide over the non-essential doctrines of the Faith. Most scholars agree with this but the problem is that relatively minor doctrines have profound implications. Take for instance the doctrine of the essential nature of man.

Many modern theological thinkers reject the view that a person is anything other than a unity (monism) because they can find no scientific evidence for a spirit/soul. They claim that the idea that humans have more than one constituent part is the product of ancient Greek philosophy. They believe that the theology of the Old Testament supports their view and they also argue that any attempt to describe humans as other than a unity leads to an unbiblollical depreciation of the body.

This understanding of the human being has some serious implications. For instance, in terms of this view, when a person dies then they simply cease to exist. Either life ends at the grave or is suspended in some sort of ‘soul sleep’ until the great resurrection at the end of time. It is hard to differentiate, in terms of monism, just how a human differs from an animal, and it requires us to perform mental gymnastics with several biblical texts. For instance Jesus told the thief on that cross that “today you will be with me in paradise.” (Lk 23:43) and Paul wrote that he would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8)

There are two other current views on this doctrine. The most common among reformed and conservative evangelical theologians is Dichotomism. This view has dominated academic thinking on this subject since the Counsel of Constantinople in AD 381. The idea here is that the human being is composed of two basic parts, a material and an immaterial. The non-material part is interchangeably called spirit or soul, or in more modern thinking, mind. If there is a distinction, they say, it is that the word ‘spirit’ describes the human capacity to relate to God while ‘soul’ describes the capacity to relate to self and others. The main biblical basis for this view is the fact that the words spirit and soul are used interchangeably in many places in the Bible (Gen 35:18; Eccl 12:7; Heb 12:23; Rev 6:9 and so on).

One of the most troubling implications of this very commonly held view is that it makes little if any distinction between mind and spirit.

It views our immaterial part as one reality variously described as mind, soul, spirit, heart, and so on. As a result of this the Christian experience is defined largely in terms of mental processes. We commit ourselves to God, we change our thinking, and we align our wills. There is no real place in this thinking for a metaphysical spiritual ‘rebirth’ despite the fact that Jesus taught that we need to be born again from above (Jn 3:7). Christianity becomes more a matter of learning and willing rather than a supernatural relationship with Christ Jesus. To me this is a very serious problem in the church today. The focus on relating to God through knowledge and will rather than spirit to spirit was Adam’s downfall and it is still a huge problem.

There is a third way of viewing the human makeup which is still popular in Pentecostal and charismatic circles. It is called Trichotomy and it was taught by the early church fathers prior to late 4^th century. Trichotomism is the belief that we are made up of body, soul, and spirit. Whilst humans are functionally unitary beings we do have both physical and immaterial dimensions. The non-physical aspect is in turn made up of a soul and a spirit. Soul describes elements such as mind, emotion, memory, will and so on. Spirit describes that aspect of our being that communicates with God and interfaces with the spiritual realm. The soul is generated by the brain but when the body dies it continues to live on in association with the spirit. This continued existence is either apart from God or in relationship with Him. When a person is born again their spirit comes alive to God; if they are not born again the spirit continues to be separated from the life of God.

I believe that the trichotomous view is the better doctrine because it is supported by texts such as 1 Thess 5:23 and because it makes sense of the biblical contention that we are made in God’s image, in His triune likeness.

God is three yet one and we too are three yet one. It is not without its problems yet I believe that the doctrinal side-effects associated with the other two theories are far more problematic and negatively impactful.

So, relatively minor doctrines are still important for they have profound implications. It is true that we should not divide over them but we certainly should debate them and consider them very carefully.

The essential nature of man Read More »

Sound Doctrine

Paul warned that the time would come when people would no longer welcome sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3) and most Bible-believing Christians suspect that time has indeed come. The problem though is ‘what constitutes sound doctrine?’

To the Fundamentalist, sound doctrine must include such things as the inerrancy of scripture, a literal six day creation, and so on. A Liberal Christian might argue that sound doctrine is whatever conforms to the law of love. A Calvinist would build a five-point definition around God’s sovereign predeterminism. So what then constitutes sound doctrine?

In First Timothy Paul warned about false teachers of the law and contrasted their legalistic injunctions with, ‘sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me’ (1 Timothy 1:10-11). This statement comes at the end of a passage condemning teachers who promote ‘false doctrine’. We can therefore get some idea of what sound doctrine is by comparing it to what it isn’t. Paul criticises false teachers for devoting themselves to myths and meaningless talk and in verse 7 he describes them as wanting to be ‘teachers of the law’. So, sound doctrine is neither man-made myths nor religious Law, but is something else entirely.

In his statement in verse 11 Paul gives us a rough definition of what he meant by the term ‘sound doctrine’;

it is that which conforms to the glorious gospel that God entrusted to him.

So, in order to determine further what constitutes sound doctrine, we need to explore what Paul understood by this ‘glorious gospel of the blessed God’.

In Romans 1:1-4 Paul writes that he has been ‘set apart for the gospel of God…the Gospel regarding his Son… Jesus Christ our Lord’, and in verse 9 he writes about ‘preaching the gospel of his Son’. So the glorious gospel is centred on Jesus. In Colossians 1:21-23 Paul makes it even more explicit by writing; ‘Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation — if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant’.

So, sound doctrine is that which has its basis in Christ Jesus – in His reconciling act of redemption and in obedience to what He taught.

In the 5^th verse of Romans Chapter 1 Paul writes of his commission ‘to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith’. So, sound doctrine includes a call to obedience to Jesus Christ. It is neither myth nor law, but rather the good news of salvation in Christ Jesus and obedience to His instruction.

It strikes me that much of what various groups promote as sound doctrine is more like the false doctrine Paul had in mind. Teaching the dogma of a particular theological persuasion does not in itself constitute sound doctrine. Calling the loyal to obedience to a church hierarchy or to a system of legalistic behavioural patterns does not constitute sound doctrine.

I think that we are living in times where many people no longer teach or receive sound doctrine. It is all too easy to see this in non-Christian religions, cult systems and so on. However, the lack of sound doctrine in the church itself is a bigger, if less obvious, problem. Sections of the church teach easy-believerism masquerading as Grace, others teach name-it-and-claim-it prosperity, and yet others teach complex theological systems and philosophies. Some sections of the church major on moralistic modes of behaviour while others teach that anything goes so long as it is ‘loving’. I think Paul had this sort of thing in mind when he wrote; ‘For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

To restore sound doctrine to the church is to return to a focus on the Lord Jesus Christ; who He is, what He achieved for us, what He taught and practiced, and what He expects of us.

Doctrine

The essential nature of man

There is a well-known saying attributed to St. Augustine; ‘In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity’.

Sound Doctrine

Paul warned that the time would come when people would no longer welcome sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3) and most Bible-believing Christians suspect that time has indeed come. The problem though is ‘what constitutes sound doctrine?’

QUICK PAGE LINKS

FOLLOW ME ON

About Me