What is Christian liberty? What does it cover? What does it not cover? How do sincere Christians of different belief work together in areas of agreement, while respecting areas of disagreement? Paul gives us more guidance on the broad question of Christian liberty in the fourteenth chapter of Romans than we can find in any other single context of the New Testament.
Why do sincere Christians of different belief find it so difficult to disagree agreeably? I believe Paul also addresses this question. This week I try to lay the foundation for Biblical Christian liberty. Given the context in which Paul presents this teaching, it appears that our liberty should cover areas of non-essential beliefs or practices. Paul and other New Testament inspired writers leave no doubt in our minds. There are areas of essential truth that are so important to God’s revealed Word that we have every reason—in fact Biblical example and justification—to demand agreement, or we cannot reasonably walk with those who hold to these ideas. Amos 3:3 makes this point. In these cases liberty would constitute a grave wrong. If Christian liberty covers all points of belief and all practices, why don’t conservative historical Christians grant “liberty” to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses? Obviously these groups have crossed major lines of essential Biblical truth that should not permit an attitude of liberty. Where then do we draw the lines and stand firm, and where do we grant liberty? Clearly all believers cannot agree even on where the lines should be drawn, but the closer we get to agreement on the distinction between essential truths and non-essential truths the closer we will be to a rational attitude toward differences.
It has been my observation and experience over the years that I can tolerate individuals of significantly different beliefs if I perceive that they sincerely believe what they advocate—and if they are open and candid in their articulation of their beliefs. If I sense vagueness in their expression, they set off alarms in my mind of potential insincerity and deceit. You may not always agree with me, but I am bound by New Testament direction and example to be so specific and so articulate in my expression of my beliefs that you cannot possibly doubt what I do believe. In New Testament ethics deceit is a sin and more a characteristic of Satan’s devices than of gospel preachers. I believe any appearance of deceit or obscurity gravely weakens the potential for believers with sincere differences of belief to communicate in a gracious manner.
Another hurdle to gracious dialogue regarding differences of belief surfaces when one believer accuses the other of low or impure motives. Based on the Bible’s description of the inherent deceit in the human heart, even mine and yours, how can one person know with any degree of certainty what motivates another person? Thus if you and I discover a point of major disagreement and seek to discuss it, the moment I inject an accusation against you of low motives I jeopardize any degree of open and constructive dialogue.
Perhaps all this leads us to three fundamental rules of godly and constructive dialogue.
Be open and honest. Be as straightforward and concise as possible. If you can’t articulate your beliefs with clarity, refrain from articulating them at all.
Be kind in your assessment of your brother’s or sister’s motives. Deal with the ideas presented and try to avoid the unknown, and often unknowable question of motives.
Devote time in your personal Bible study to distinguishing essential Biblical truth from non-essential points of truth. Show tolerance toward those who differ from you in areas of non-essentials. Conversely study so as to clearly state and defend areas of essential belief so that you can be unmistakable when discussing these truths with others. What are your essential beliefs vs. your non-essential beliefs?
Clearly Paul did not consider the basis of our eternal salvation to be a matter of open debate and thus open to Christian liberty. When he surfaced his teaching on this truth, he frequently emphasized “Not of works.” When John exposed the depth of docetic Gnostic heresy, he did not instruct his readers to show Christian liberty. He refuted and rejected these teachings as “anti-Christ.”
Paul affirms that there is such a thing as Christian liberty, areas of belief in which sincere Bible students may disagree with grace and with godly tolerance, but the New Testament is no less clear that there are major teachings of Scripture that are so important and so integral to a sound Biblical faith that they cannot be negotiated. They are essential to a functional and sound Biblical faith. How do you know the difference? Unless we devote significant time and prayerful study to the question, we cannot.
Let us study Scripture to discern the difference,
Joe Holder
The Basis of Christian Liberty
"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. (Romans 14:10-12) "
Given the diversity of ideas and personalities, it is no surprise that people often do not agree, even within social structures that build on harmony and foster “sameness” of thinking, a fellowship of churches as a prime example. The premise that enables people to disagree and continue working together necessarily builds on the concept of Christian liberty. In every point, real or imagined, we should not expect to agree. In the interpretation and application of every passage of Scripture we will not agree. If this be the case, how can we disagree and continue to work in harmony with each other in those points of belief where we do agree? The answer to this question lies in a Biblical study of Christian liberty. Generally Augustine is credited with the frequently mentioned saying that attempts to conceptualize this principle, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials liberty; in all things charity.”
The challenge that makes our task far more complex than it might seem at first glance is surfaced in Augustine’s statement. What is an essential belief, one that is so central to our faith and so important to the whole of what we believe that we must require unity of belief in those points in order to work comfortably together, despite the difference of belief? What points of belief or conduct are less central, sufficiently so that we may comfortably live with diversity of belief, knowing that it does not erode or compromise the core essentials of our faith? Many years ago I confronted these questions regarding essentials versus non-essentials and realized that the manner in which we classify our various beliefs and doctrines frames our whole paradigm of fellowship, of accepting those who do not agree with us in non-essential points, while rejecting others who disagree with us in more essential beliefs. My pondering nudged me to consider a rather challenging exercise. Make two lists. For simplicity, use two pieces of paper. Make one list of all the beliefs or practices that you consider to be essentials of your faith. Compromise this belief, and you compromise the very identity of your faith. It is too central to what you believe and too important to your whole belief system to be compromised or revised. Then on the second page list all the beliefs or practices that you regard as part of your sincere belief, but you view them as of lesser importance to your core beliefs. You can tolerate a reasonable degree of variation in these ideas without compromising your primary belief system.
I found this exercise to be quite beneficial. I also must admit that, over time, my essentials list has grown a bit shorter, and my non-essentials list has become a bit longer. However, as this revision has taken shape, my essentials list has become more truly a list of essentials, truths that, regardless of the trends or fads of the day, regardless of the names of men or women who hold to one or another idea, I believe these truths to be solidly Biblical and so truly central to my understanding of the teachings of Scripture that I cannot—and will not—compromise my beliefs in these areas.
It is my observation that, even within a tight fellowship such as the Primitive Baptist people, the identity of essential beliefs from one region to another or from one person to another will not be uniformly the same. If I include a particular doctrine or teaching of Scripture in my essential list, and you put it in your non-essential list, holding to a significantly different view than mine, we have a problem.
So, preacher, what do you include in your list of essentials? Good question, I include beliefs regarding the person and character of God, the dynamics of our eternal salvation, the nature of our discipleship, and the certainty of our final destiny. Yes indeed, these brief points expand significantly when examined. Let me give you a couple of timely example. First, I will allow for a certain amount of variation regarding a person’s explanation of the Biblical doctrine of predestination. However, when a person’s belief in this doctrine threatens to compromise the moral character of God, I will assert the obvious point that this errant belief has violated my list of essential beliefs, and I will oppose the doctrine—and those who teach it. Secondly, I believe God effects our new birth exclusively by His own work and grace. Thus if someone asserts that God requires some condition or act in man to execute His work of regeneration, even if that person claims that God effectually decrees that the person do it, the belief crosses the line of my essential beliefs; I will oppose the idea and the person who asserts it. In both of these examples it is my belief that the ideas mentioned compromise either the moral character of God or His exclusive work in our salvation. I make no apology for the fact that I will not stand with or support those who hold and teach these ideas. Both doctrines violate points of belief that stand clearly on my list of essential doctrines.
What hymnal should a church use in its song worship? I have known people who effectively put the answer to this question on their essentials list. Since no hymnal other than the Psalms of David can claim divine inspiration, I will gladly accept any hymnal whose selections present sound Biblical sentiments. It is as clearly a non-essential for me as the above beliefs are essentials.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Do not extract this teaching from its context. Paul was not teaching that people who believe in docetic gnosticism and people who believe in the truth of the Incarnation should avoid judging or criticizing each other.[i] He did not teach that people who believe in the divine and causative predestination of all things and those who confine divine predestination to our eternal salvation, including all the divine works necessary to our eternal salvation, should smile and ignore their theological differences.[ii] He did not suggest that those who teach some form of human contribution to the new birth, even if that contribution is divinely decreed, and those who believe that all the works that produce the new birth are both in and of God alone—no human contribution, decreed or not—should simply ignore their differences.[iii]
The context of Paul’s teaching here deals exclusively with non-essential issues of belief or conduct. He used a vegetarian diet and a rigid observance of the Old Testament Sabbath as his two examples, both non-essential points to the core of essential New Testament doctrines. Paul directs us to show grace and to avoid harsh judgments against our brothers and sisters in areas such as these that are not necessary to the major and essential doctrines of the New Testament. We are all vulnerable to err in these areas of belief and conduct. When we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, He, not our brothers and sisters, shall enlighten us as to what was essential and true and what was not. In the meantime we may reasonably observe Augustine’s recommendation of liberty regarding non-essential ideas.
A study of Christian liberty, firmly anchored in the teachings of Paul in the fourteenth chapter of Romans, inevitably and rightly leads us to consider two major factors in our belief and in our distinction between essentials and non-essentials.
Epistemology. This is a big word for a simple and logical truth. What is the real source and authority for what we believe? While many people claim Scripture alone as their exclusive authority, challenge their belief, and they will as readily quote an old confession of faith or an old respected writer as they will quote the Bible. They clearly in this response reveal that they have compromised their epistemology. They no longer look to Scripture alone as their authoritative and infallible source for their beliefs. They now regard selected historical documents and uninspired men as the filter through which they interpret Scripture, effectively elevating these authorities to the level of—or superior to—Scripture. I do not advocate in this point any form of disrespect for historical confessions or the writings of deservedly respected men from the past. I simply make the point that neither of these sources is inspired and therefore should never be viewed as equal to or superior to Scripture. Defenders of these sources will often pay lip service to the claim that they do not so magnify these sources, but ask them to offer a criticism of—or disagreement with—any teachings from these sources, and they will rather fiercely defend every point and belief made by these uninspired ancient documents, fully revealing their compromised epistemology.
The “perspicuity of Scripture.” Once again we find a large word that addresses a simple, but basic truth. The concept affirms that God distinguishes the importance of various ideas and doctrines in Scripture. There are apparently some doctrines that God seems to place on His “essentials” list, for He repeatedly and emphatically devotes significant amounts of Scripture to them. Other doctrines are important, but they do not appear in Scripture as emphatically, as repetitively, or as clearly as the first set of teachings. The clarity with which Scripture affirms a truth should direct us toward its inclusion in our “essentials” list.
The central task of distinguishing “essential” from “non-essential” beliefs should be one of our most important activities in our Bible study and in our Bible teaching. I believe the Augustinian citation captures a broad concept that is Biblical, timeless, and practical. Failure to distinguish essentials from non-essentials inevitably leads to confusion, both in the person who fails to make the distinction and in the people under that person’s teaching influence. We may disagree graciously when advocates of both ideas present their beliefs with clarity and conviction, not with vagueness or duplicity.
Let me give you an example. Several years ago I had occasion over some three or four months to interact with a well-studied Christian gentleman (I use these adjectives with sincere respect for the man) who is active in the Southern Baptists’ Founders Movement that I mentioned in a footnote because of the movement’s sincere effort to shift Southern Baptist beliefs back toward the doctrines of grace. Shortly after we became acquainted, we engaged in a brief discussion of some of the doctrines of grace. I identified that I was a Primitive Baptist. Being a devoted student of Christian history, this man immediately identified his familiarity with the Kehukee Declaration, one of two major documents that defined the Primitive Baptist rejection of Fuller’s influence in American Baptists early in the nineteenth century. We had a very pleasant discussion. In the course of the discussion he asked the pointed question, “Do Primitive Baptists still reject Fuller’s ‘duty-faith’ teachings?” Without hesitation I answered that we do still object to these ideas that attempt to compromise the doctrines of grace by introducing an element of human participation in the new birth (Likely Fuller, who claimed to retain a belief in election, held to a divinely decreed human response to the gospel to ensure in his belief that all the elect would hear and believe the gospel). We didn’t argue the point. He understood my belief; I understood his. We acknowledged that we did not agree on those points, but we enjoyed three months of good fellowship and discussion on points that we did share in common. Had he attempted to double-speak or to intimidate me into agreeing with him, no such continuing and enjoyable fellowship would have been possible. We disagreed, but we did so in Christian love because we both were kind but quite distinct and transparent in our articulation of our different beliefs. To this day I deeply respect the man, though he and I are no more agreed on the teachings of Fuller than we were that first day we discussed the issue.
The prevalence of a charitable demeanor when we disagree depends largely on our willingness to be concise and transparent in the manner in which we present our beliefs. The more we “hedge” and in any way leave our beliefs vague the more we cultivate suspicion of insincerity in those who do not agree with us, in the process eroding any inclination toward charity from them. You may not always agree with me, but I am obligated by Scripture to be open, concise, and consistent as I present my beliefs about Biblical teachings. I am convinced that it is often these non-transparent and less-than-concise forms of expression that create the major interference to charitable disagreement, even in the area of essentials.
We shall examine this question of Christian liberty in days to come.
[i] The error of docetic Gnosticism is the precise error that John addresses in most of his New Testament writings. It denies the literal human body of Jesus, along with a long list of related core Biblical truths. John didn’t advise—or practice—tolerance of this error under the heading of Christian liberty; rather he exposed and rejected it as being the core of “anti-Christ.”
[ii] Paul’s critics accused him of this excessive and extreme view of predestination in the first ten verses of the third chapter of Romans. Did he politely tell the Romans that Christian liberty should prevail and advocates of Biblical predestination, people who reject predestination altogether, and advocates of extreme predestination that effectively (even if advocates attempt word games to deny the obvious) makes God the cause of all things, including every act of sinful man, should just work hard to get along under the guise of Christian liberty? No, he rejected the false accusation against himself, referring to it as a “slanderous” report, and he also continued to affirm the truth of predestination in the eighth chapter of Romans. Thus Paul rejected denial of predestination, as well as extreme predestination, while affirming the truth of that doctrine.
[iii] Historically any idea of human contribution or active participation in the new birth, even assertions of action in man that are effectually decreed by God, degenerate over time into either Fullerism’s hybrid attempt to compromise salvation by the necessity of both works (Fuller’s “duty-faith” idea) and grace or into full Arminianism. Consider as an example the historical migration among Baptists who embraced Fuller’s teachings near the end of the eighteenth century. They soon drifted into an errant view of the purpose of the gospel and quickly from that point into increasingly human-centric views that bordered on the fully man-centric teachings of Arminius. Today many Southern Baptists are attempting to shift back toward the doctrines of grace, but their continued allegiance to Fuller and his teachings will almost certainly doom their noble efforts to a regression back into man-centric pseudo-Arminianism within a few generations at most, perhaps much sooner.
Studies In Romans 
