According to what some have called ‘theological triage,’ doctrine can be divided into categories of greater and lesser significance along the lines of primary, secondary, and tertiary importance. These categories are often introduced when one wants to shy away from the ‘fundamentalist’ error of emphasizing every doctrine as equally important or being open to accepting the particular position of the fundamentalist in question. However, having less confidence concerning so-called secondary and tertiary matters would, when consistently applied, lead one toward fundamentalist beliefs.
In this post, Tom Ascol writes, “To put it bluntly, the Southern Baptist Convention needs to be led by pastors. Granted, there are some pastors who are eager to be enablers of or fellow travelers with wayward bureaucrats. I am not talking about those guys.”
This post contains the original videos (in order) from Jon Harris and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary pertaining to the Fuller Controversy.
Dominick S. Hernández
Jonathan T. Pennington
Jarvis J. Williams
Matthew J. Hall
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. writes, “theological seriousness and maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative importance. God’s truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail, but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank attention in a time of theological crisis.” We can understand this claim to refer to different areas of doctrine. For example, Mohler writes, “Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category.” But if someone claims Jesus already returned, physically, shouldn’t that eschatological issue be categorized as a first-level theological issue? Alternatively, Mohler allows room for disagreement over something he would categorize as a first-level theological issue, like the doctrine of the Trinity, at least with respect to, for example, the affirmation or denial of the eternal functional subordination of the Son.
In this article, Stephen J. Wellum writes, “It would be an understatement to say that penal substitution has come under attack today. From voices outside of evangelical theology to those within, the historic Reformation view of the cross is claimed to be a ‘modern’ invention from the cultural West, to be too ‘legal’ in orientation, to sanction violence, to privilege divine retributive justice over God’s love, to be a form of divine child abuse, to reduce Scripture’s polychrome presentation of the cross to a lifeless monochrome, and so on. None of these charges are new, and have been argued since the end of the sixteenth century with the rise of the Socinians and liberal theology.”
In this podcast episode of Christ the Center, non-SBC author, “Daniel Schrock speaks about self-conception in light of the Revoice movement and the Nashville Statement.”
In this article, Mark Coppenger mentions, “the school of Thumper, who was pressed to recall his father’s instructions in Bambi, ‘If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.’ I fear that many of us have studied too long there.”
In this article, non-SBC author Lisa Spencer asks, “Does Jesus really need to look ‘just like us’ in order to be acceptable to us? Do we really need to circumvent the reality of sin so that it doesn’t offend our sense of ethnic affirmation? We don’t have to dismiss ethnicity, nor should we, but we certainly can’t let it govern our theology.”
In this podcast episode, Christ the Center welcomes, “seminary presidents Albert Mohler and Peter Lillback to discuss the role of the seminary in today’s world.”
In this article, non-SBC author Daniel Schrock comments at length on an objection raised when, “the 47th General Assembly opted (after a lengthy and impassioned debate) to ‘declare the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’s ‘Nashville Statement’ on biblical sexuality as a biblically faithful declaration and refer the ‘Nashville Statement’ to the Committee on Discipleship Ministries for inclusion and promotion among its denominational teaching materials.'”