An Alternative to Doctrinal Tiers
Doctrinal uncertainty captures not just the difference in relative importance of doctrine, but also the difference between how clearly Scripture presents a doctrine. Doctrinal uncertainty is inherently more focused on the text of Scripture itself. In this way, doctrinal uncertainty is an attractive alternative to doctrinal tiers when dealing with the question of why Christians disagree on some interpretations of Scripture and which interpretations are within orthodoxy.
You have probably heard the phrase “doctrinal tiers” at some point if you have been involved at Church for any length of time. Each Church I have attended in both my childhood and adult life have either mentioned doctrinal tiers or explicitly included them on their Church website. Suffice to say, at some point in your life I have no doubt you will encounter doctrinal tiers if you attend a Bible-preaching Church.
But what are “doctrinal tiers?” Is it a helpful concept? Are there any problems with using it? And is there a better way to solve the same problems doctrinal tiers tries to solve? In this post, I want to answer each of these questions and, in particular, propose an alternative to doctrinal tiers which I call “doctrinal uncertainty.”
What are doctrinal tiers?
Doctrinal tiers are a means to categorize different Bible doctrines in order of importance, orthodoxy or necessity of belief. The number of tiers, what each tier contains, and how the tiers are used varies from person to person and from Church to Church. I have seen them formulated as a pyramid and as a target. Essentially, doctrinal tiers is a way to answer the question “what doctrines and biblical interpretations can Christians disagree on and yet still be considered orthodox in their theology?“
Knowing what Biblical doctrines are essential to be considered saved and orthodox and what doctrines are “secondary” is a vital and practical distinction to make. And that is really all the tiers are: a method of categorization. It is a way of saying “this set of biblical beliefs you must hold to in order to be considered Christian, but these other issues, while important, have varying valid, orthodox interpretations.”
Generally “first tier” issues are the foundational doctrines of the gospel:
- Who Christ is
- What the nature of Sin is
- What is the gospel
- How is one saved
And so on. In contrast, secondary or tertiary doctrines include:
- Infant baptism vs. believers’ baptism
- The various eschatological interpretations
- Views on Church structure
And others. From these lists, it is clear the first set deals with doctrines essential for saving faith while the second list deals with different practical matters of Church life and the interpretation of difficult passages.
Now, the concept of doctrinal tiers is important and helpful to a degree. By knowing where the lines of orthodoxy are drawn, Christians can contend for “essential” issues and agree to disagree on other issues. However, there are several problems with the doctrinal tiers model.
Issues with doctrinal tiers
1. Who decides how many tiers should their be and why?
This is a common problem I see when I read about doctrinal tiers: there is no “standard” for how many tiers one creates. Many Churches I know of have either two or three tiers. If you have two tiers, you divide up doctrines between necessary for orthodoxy and doctrines which Christians can disagree on. The three tier model adds another category, typically on doctrines which affect Church practice.
But hypothetically, one need not stop at two or three tiers. Why not four? Five? Ten? At some point the categories end up losing their usefulness, but I think this highlights an issue with the doctrinal tiers model: there is no limit to which you can categorize doctrines by degree of importance. As soon as you open the door for “ranking” doctrines so to speak, there is no reason you have to stop at two or three levels. This can create a situation where some doctrines are seen as “unimportant” simply because they are in a lower tier. Eschatology is a great example: I have met many people who refuse to study the topic because it is “less important.”
2. Who or what decides what doctrine goes in what tier?
This becomes more of a problem the more tiers you add to your model. Who decides which doctrines are essential and which can be safely disagreed upon? For the most part, Christians agree doctrines related to Christ and the gospel are tier 1. But what about different view on God’s providence in salvation? For some people, this is closer to a tier 1 issue than to other people.
Additionally, many of the tier 2 or 3 doctrines in Scripture have a direct relation to tier 1 doctrines. For example, your understanding of the doctrine of baptism (tier 2+) is not independent from what you believe about the gospel (tier 1). And as mentioned above, your view of God’s sovereignty in salvation (most of the time tier 2+) is integral to what you believe about the work of Christ on the cross (tier 1).
The issue with doctrinal tiers is someone has to sort all this out in a way that is not arbitrary. But if you examine what different Churches put into different tiers, you will find enough variation to call into question the process of how the doctrinal tiers are developed. Not every Church agrees with what doctrines goes into what tiers. How then does one discern what the “right” tier is to put a doctrine into? Without some objective or explicitly Scriptural process to decide what doctrines go into what tier, the decision potentially becomes arbitrary.
3. Is there a strong textual basis for doctrinal tiers?
A final critique of the doctrinal tiers model is the Bible generally presents itself as a unity of truth. What I mean by this is Scripture does not label its own doctrines or order them from “most important” to “least important”. Rather, the Bible is presented as God’s revelation to man as a whole. Moreover, doctrines are developed from synthesizing a wide variety of Biblical literature: poetry, prophecy, narrative, epistles, etc. Very rarely does Scripture explicitly say a certain doctrine takes priority over a different doctrine, such as ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) being in a “higher tier” than eschatology (doctrine of end times).
There are two potential exceptions to this general rule. The first is the Bible puts an enormous emphasis on God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.
-
Doubts About William Lane Craig’s Creation Account
Written by Peter J. Leithart |
Friday, October 22, 2021
On the surface, Craig’s argument turns on his non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2-3. He sets up a hermeneutical frame in three steps. First, Genesis shares features with myth. Yet, second, Genesis also has features of history. Therefore, third, Genesis is “mytho-history,” and we determine what Genesis teaches about Adam by mining the nuggets of history hidden under layers of metaphor. Craig warns us to avoid a simplistic antithesis between myth and history, but he ends up with his own antithesis, sorting bits of the creation narrative into baskets marked “metaphorical” and “literal.”William Lane Craig (“The Historical Adam,” October 2021) believes that a being corresponding to the biblical Adam actually existed. Paul’s typology of Adam and Christ, he argues, requires an historical, as opposed to a merely literary, Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). But this isn’t your Fundamentalist grandma’s Adam. According to Craig, Adam didn’t exist at the beginning of time, but was preceded by billions of years and many varieties of semi-humans. Adam wasn’t formed from the dust of the ground nor was Eve built from Adam’s rib; our first parents were selected from the ancestors of Homo sapiens known as Homo heidelbergensis. They didn’t live in an idyllic paradise called Eden, nor were they tempted by a talking snake, though they did disobey God, were alienated from him, and unleashed sin and death into the world.
On the surface, Craig’s argument turns on his non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2-3. He sets up a hermeneutical frame in three steps. First, Genesis shares features with myth. Yet, second, Genesis also has features of history. Therefore, third, Genesis is “mytho-history,” and we determine what Genesis teaches about Adam by mining the nuggets of history hidden under layers of metaphor. Craig warns us to avoid a simplistic antithesis between myth and history, but he ends up with his own antithesis, sorting bits of the creation narrative into baskets marked “metaphorical” and “literal.”
Craig is confident. He knows the anthropomorphic deity of Genesis 2-3 shouldn’t be taken literally, nor the garden, nor the trees, nor the serpent. The ages of early men are, Craig thinks, absurdly long, though not long enough to accommodate modern beliefs about the age of the earth. Yet he also knows these men existed: We shouldn’t “imagine that they comprise purely fictitious characters.” He’s capable of seeing through the eyes of ancient Babylonians, who didn’t see “the desiccated flesh and bones of Tiamat” when they looked at the sky, and he sneaks into the head of the author of Genesis to discover that the biblical account of Eden and the fall was “fantastic, even to the Pentateuchal author himself.”
How does Craig know all this? Why preserve the historical reality of Methuselah and Noah while dispensing with their ages? Real persons and events are, he says, “clothed in the metaphorical and figurative language of myth.” But clothes make the man: By what criterion does Craig distinguish one from the other? He offers no argument, relying on readers to share his prejudices concerning plausibility. To which we may ask: Whose plausibility? Craig thinks the ages of early men are too long to be literal; but Augustine might disagree, as might Ussher or the millions of Christians between the two and since who have constructed chronologies from the numbers of Genesis. The account of Eden and the fall is “clearly metaphorical or figurative,” but clear to whom?
Read More -
How Should We View Our Children?
Truly, our children are an undeserved gift from God. God could have chosen others to become parents of your children. Instead, God chose you to be a parent of your children. Let us then thank and praise God for our children. May we never regard them as a burden but as a blessing from God—from whom all blessings flow. And may God grant us grace, as we train up our children in the way they should go, so that when they are old they will not depart from it (Prov. 22:6).
I cannot recall how many times I met people who honestly told me that they did not want to have children because children would just interfere with their lives. They viewed children as a burden, rather than a blessing. In fact, a certain woman frankly told me that she was too selfish to have a child. She did not want to have a child, because she knew it would mean an inconvenient life.
Do you know how many babies are aborted per day in the U. S.? The answer is heart breaking—approximately 3,700 babies per day. And 93 % of all abortions happen generally because of inconvenience. Listen to the following statistics:
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
In other words, if you were to ask 100 mothers who aborted their children, “Why did you abort your child?” A large number of them would probably say something like this: “Well, because that baby in my womb would just interfere with my education or career.” Or, “I don’t want to have an inconvenient life.”
What?! You aborted your unborn baby simply because you didn’t want to have an inconvenient life?! Of course, it can be inconvenient to have a baby. You will experience sleepless nights as you nurse your baby in the middle of the night or rock your sick baby to sleep. You will have additional expenses, messes to clean up; and, your days will not always go according to your schedule. Children can indeed “interfere” with some of our plans.
Of course, it is difficult to raise a child. Being a parent comes with great responsibilities (you provide for your children, take care of them, train them in the way they should go, correct and discipline them, and the list goes on and on). Such responsibilities are not always easy to do, especially if a child has a physical or mental disability.
And, of course, it can be stressful to have children. Kids can sometimes be annoying. They can test your patience. Having children requires sacrifice. You need to sacrifice your time, your comfort, and sometimes your dreams. Oh, but the joy of parenting surpasses its stress and sacrifice. The blessing of parenthood outweighs its discomfort.
My wife and I have five children. Yes, I don’t deny the difficulty of parenting.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Paul’s Warnings to the Galatians Still Speak to Us
For Paul, the only way for sinful men and women to stand before the Holy God in the judgment yet to come is to possess the merits of Jesus through faith. So, it would figure that this would be the place where Satan would direct his attacks—rarely in frontal assaults, more often in subtle re-definition. For the gospel as taught by Paul is “all of Christ.” But Satan will find a way to make it “some of Christ and some of me.” Yet a gospel that is “some of Christ and some of me,” is a different gospel from that which Paul proclaimed, and tragically, is no gospel at all.
Paul’s warnings to the Galatians should ring in our ears today. To his amazement, a false gospel arose in the Galatian churches almost immediately after Paul left the area and was widely accepted in same churches in which Paul and Barnabas had preached in person. Grounded in wide-spread Jewish customs and practices, the false message was so compelling that even Peter and Barnabas were taken in for a time. Just as no counterfeiter would make purple seven dollar bills with Mickey Mouse’s likeness on them, neither does a false teacher show up and announce, “Hi, everyone, I’m a false teacher.” They always have a hook. Luther understood well how such deception works
The ministers of Satan insinuate themselves into people’s minds by promising them something better. They admit that those who preached the gospel to them made a good start but say that this is not enough . . . . They confirm true doctrine but then go on to point out where it needs to be improved. This was how the false apostles gained access to the Galatians.
We should not be surprised when theologians, pastors, and elders, fall from grace and begin teaching another gospel. Sad to say, we should expect this to happen. It is not a matter of if, but when. Paul exhortation to the Galatians reminds us to always be on our guard against those who teach that the death of Jesus Christ is not sufficient in and of itself to save us from God’s wrath in the judgment yet to come. The false gospel–Christ plus something we do–makes a great deal of sense to those who think that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is primarily about ethics (conduct), and that sound doctrine is secondary to proper behavior. This hook is often used by contemporary false teachers.
The reason why this happens is rather obvious. If someone believes that Christianity is essentially about making bad people into good people, or making good people into better people, then Paul’s stress upon Christ crucified for sinners, will sound odd, or even seem offensive. The biblical writers tell us that the cross is foolishness to the Greek and a stumbling block to the Jew (1 Corinthians 1:23). It is both to modern Americans. The generic American civil religion is the religion of Cain; “do what is right in your own eyes” (Genesis 4:3). This is grounded in the sentiment that people are intrinsically good and fully capable of coming up with something on their own which they think will be acceptable to God. “All God wants is our best,” is Cain’s motto. No, what God demands of us under the law–perfect obedience–he freely grants to us in the gospel, which Paul defines as the good news of the death, resurrection, and obedience of Jesus, for us and in our place.
There will always be those in our midst urging us to soften the offense of the cross, or perhaps, to remove the offense altogether. Given Paul’s view of sin (“there is no one who seeks God”–Romans 3:11), it is important to remind ourselves that it is God who seeks sinners as seen Paul’s emphasis upon calling as God’s initiative, made effectual by the Holy Spirit working in and through the preached gospel. It is through the proclamation of the gospel, but only through the proclamation of that gospel, that God calls men and women to faith in Jesus. We must never entertain the thought of changing or “softening” our gospel to make it more inclusive and less offensive, lest our gospel become no gospel at all and we fall under Paul’s anathema.
It is also clear from Paul’s opening words to the Galatians that the issue here is the content of what is preached, not the reputation or the abilities of the preacher. A preacher’s credentials should have little to do with how charismatic or compelling he may be, but with whether or not he preaches the gospel faithfully. Faithfulness to the gospel is the standard by which a minister of word and sacrament in Christ’s church will be judged by the Lord of the church. Granted, there is no excuse for boring preaching. Nor is there any excuse for preaching which is poorly organized, confusing, difficult to understand, or otherwise not compelling. In an entertainment-based social media driven culture such as ours, we have been thoroughly trained to evaluate things by how they make us feel, or by how they hold our diminished attention spans, or even worse, by whether or not we are entertained. This is not a good thing because these things are obstacles to the “hearing with faith.”
Read More
Related Posts:
