Theological Triage by Dr. Al Mohler

[Rhetorician]

Hear ye, hear ye, all who desire to know the truth of the Gospel!!

I am wondering if the Fundamentalists brethren would accept Dr. Al Mohler's "theological triage" as a standard for doing exegesis and application of the Scripture. Check it out:

http://www.crosswalk.com/1263841/

Let me hear from you and what you think about this SBC leader has to say, OK?

"That is all!""

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[glfredrick]

The concept is nothing new, and has been in practice in the church since the earliest days. Evidence? Check out the subject matter of the various councils that were formed to deal with the highest level theological and doctrinal issues, such as the nature of Christ, the Trinity, etc.

I'm of a mind that the church would be closer to what Jesus asked and prayed for (unity) if we practiced theological triage. The concept is not saying that some things are unimportant, but that some are more important than others. The core fundamentals of the faith, for instance, take precedence over other less pressing issues that ought not divide us.

 

[BobinKy]

Hear ye, hear ye, all who desire to know the truth of the Gospel!!

I am wondering if the Fundamentalists brethren would accept Dr. Al Mohler's "theological triage" as a standard for doing exegesis and application of the Scripture. Check it out:

http://www.crosswalk.com/1263841/

Let me hear from you and what you think about this SBC leader has to say, OK?

"That is all!""

:smilewinkgrin:

I did a quick read. The concept of theological strategies into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd doctrinal orders (levels) is interesting. As is how we respond to doctrinal differences at each level. However, I do not think three orders is enough. I think all doctrinal principles should be prioritized.

. . .

Another interesting observation the article leaves with me is this.

A number of years ago, at the conclusion of the SBC civil war, Paul Pressler wrote a book A Hill On Which To Die (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999). According to the book's author, the title he chose reflected a Vietnam battle strategy that some hills in Vietnam were not important in winning the war and therefore minimum effort should be exercised toward commanding those hills; however other hills were seen as vastly more important to the war effort and are worth numbers of soldiers dieing to capture those hills. A fitting title since many SBC careers died during that Baptist struggle.

"Theological strategies" and "doctrinal orders" says to me: the SBC may not be faring so well in another Baptist struggle where the foe will not roll over. The struggle against independent baptists.

We need reconciliation of all Christian groups--not strategies or resistance plans.

. . .

I am sorry I cannot be more positive.

...Bob

 

[Tom Bryant]

"Theological strategies" and "doctrinal orders" says to me: the SBC may not be faring so well in another Baptist struggle where the foe will not roll over. The struggle against independent baptists.

Bob - not sure what you mean by this. Is there a struggle against independent baptists?

I don't want to deraail this thread.

 

[BobinKy]

Bob - not sure what you mean by this. Is there a struggle against independent baptists?

I don't want to deraail this thread.

Tom...

I probably spoke out of turn. Anyway, who am I to make such a comment. I am nothing more than a retired businessman.

Please forgive my comments.

...Bob

 

[glfredrick]

Bob - not sure what you mean by this. Is there a struggle against independent baptists?

I don't want to deraail this thread.

I had not noticed that the SBC is struggling against Independent Baptists in any form. The struggle was for the Bible and more particularly, what was said and taught concerning the Bible; it is either God's Word or it has some of God's words within its pages -- that was/is the battleground for the conservative resurgence. I expect that both we and the IFB agree on at least the fact that the Bible is God's Word. After that, it gets dicey, but mostly all 3rd level stuff, KJVO or not, etc.

Do you not see theological triage as a means to unite brothers and sisters under Christ instead of tearing each other apart?

 

[Tom Butler]

Without going through the thought process that Dr. Mohler outlines, our church has basically done the same thing. Within our congregation, we are pretty unified on the first and second order things, but have granted each other liberty on the third order.

With regard to relationships with other denominations, we may fellowship with them based on a common faith, but cannot find unity where we differ.

Differences about eschatology are not a bar to fellowship and unity. Neither is the wine or grape juice preference in the Lord's Supper.

 

[glfredrick]

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

 

[GBC Pastor]

The concept sounds solid enough, but you would never get people to agree to what should be first, second, or third order...

 

[quantumfaith]

I am unaware and would appreciate if someone might explain the "tension" between SBC and IFB. Honestly not aware there was any, any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks

 

[Tom Butler]

If there is any friction, I'm not aware of it in my area of Western Kentucky. In fact, one huge IFB church affiliated with the SBC a few years ago, once it became convinced that the Conservative Resurgence was the real thing.

The church I serve accepts letters from Independent Baptist Churches, and most will reciprocate.

As a general rule around here, if you're a conservative congregation, there's not a dimes worth of difference between SBC and IFB, except the IFBs are not SBC.

 

[SolaSaint]

Responding to the OP, this is where denominations have divided over for centuries, as far as the essential priorities. The Catholics will never agree with the doctrine of Justification and there are many Emergant theologies that are pulling away from the essential doctrines of Christ as in His Divinty and Resurrection. Jude warned us of this in the church and that is why we must all contend for the Faith. My question is, what does contending for the Faith look like in the church today?

 

[glfredrick]

Responding to the OP, this is where denominations have divided over for centuries, as far as the essential priorities. The Catholics will never agree with the doctrine of Justification and there are many Emergant theologies that are pulling away from the essential doctrines of Christ as in His Divinty and Resurrection. Jude warned us of this in the church and that is why we must all contend for the Faith. My question is, what does contending for the Faith look like in the church today?

I'd suggest that it looks much the same as it has always looked. One group of believers bringing to bear Scriptures to convince another group of believers that they are misplaced or even heretical in their beliefs.

This process is ongoing every day in the Evangelical world through all sorts of means, from journal articles, book-length rebuttals, face-to-face debates, councils, joint commissions, etc., etc., etc.

Prayerfully it would not look like some epochs in church history, the 30 years war, for instance... Too many people got dead for what should have been merely matters of religious liberty. Of course if the church and state are tied, then anything goes, for one looses the tax base and potential military conscripts.

 

[quantumfaith]

If there is any friction, I'm not aware of it in my area of Western Kentucky. In fact, one huge IFB church affiliated with the SBC a few years ago, once it became convinced that the Conservative Resurgence was the real thing.

The church I serve accepts letters from Independent Baptist Churches, and most will reciprocate.

As a general rule around here, if you're a conservative congregation, there's not a dimes worth of difference between SBC and IFB, except the IFBs are not SBC.

What, or how are we defining "conservative"?

 

[glfredrick]

What, or how are we defining "conservative"?

I believe, should you choose to pursue that question that we'll end up in the quagmire once again. The term seems to have no common ground, as it is based in the worldview and perception of the individual or congregation and it is shifting sand.

Some in the political arena have suggested that a liberal is anyone to the left of oneself, while a conservative is anyone to the right. That is not far from the truth in the church as well.

After reading a bunch of posts on this board, I doubt that we could EVER come to an agreement as to what that term means that would satisfy everyone.

To one, it means KJVO, strict and literal codes for behavior and actions, etc. To another it means adherence to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. To yet another it means almost anything as long as it isn't "liberal" which also fails to be defined, but that person will know exactly in his or her mind what it means, even if no one else agrees.

 

[quantumfaith]

I believe, should you choose to pursue that question that we'll end up in the quagmire once again. The term seems to have no common ground, as it is based in the worldview and perception of the individual or congregation and it is shifting sand.

Some in the political arena have suggested that a liberal is anyone to the left of oneself, while a conservative is anyone to the right. That is not far from the truth in the church as well.

After reading a bunch of posts on this board, I doubt that we could EVER come to an agreement as to what that term means that would satisfy everyone.

To one, it means KJVO, strict and literal codes for behavior and actions, etc. To another it means adherence to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. To yet another it means almost anything as long as it isn't "liberal" which also fails to be defined, but that person will know exactly in his or her mind what it means, even if no one else agrees.

Without wading then into the quagmire, I would assume that defining the term "conservative" for many involves ones "choice of theology".

 

[quantumfaith]

glfredrick:

To one, it means KJVO, strict and literal codes for behavior and actions, etc. To another it means adherence to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. To yet another it means almost anything as long as it isn't "liberal" which also fails to be defined, but that person will know exactly in his or her mind what it means, even if no one else agrees.[/QUOTE]

BTW: Excellent observation. I guess the biblical principle that "we are all right in our own eyes" remains an axiom.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I am unaware and would appreciate if someone might explain the "tension" between SBC and IFB. Honestly not aware there was any, any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks

The tension exists mostly in evangelism and missions- unfortunately.

To wit- an IFB who feels "called" to go and plant a church in an area where several good SBC churches already exist and sends out letters proclaiming that said area "has no Gospel preaching churches."

Or many SBC's who refuse to allow IFB missionaries to present their mission work in the church.

For shame on both.

 

[BobinKy]

Mexdeaf...

Good post!

...Bob

 

[Humblesmith]

In Romans 14, Paul tells us specifically to not divide over some things. He lists two: The keeping of days and the eating of foods. These are significant, for the NT teachings on sabbath-keeping and dietary laws are clear......these are not areas where scripture is silent. There is a correct biblical teaching on these two issues, yet Paul tells us to not divide fellowship over them.

But the same apostle Paul tells the church in 1 Cor 15 that without the resurrection we are still in our sins, and in 1 Cor 5 tells the church to remove a man who is in gross sexual sin.

So here we have principles: Some areas of bible teaching, even though there is a correct biblical position, should not be divided over. Other areas are so significant that we should divide over them.

But as has already been pointed out, the difficulty is in getting the church to agree on what things belong in each category.