When a Beloved Doctrine is Not a Main Point

Last week, I cautioned care when we debate doctrines that cannot be found as the main points of particular passages of Scripture. To be clear, I am not saying that such doctrines are false; they very well may be true and worth believing! My point is simply that we ought to spend most of our time debating the main points, lest we lose sight of those main points in favor of issues, however true they may be, of lesser importance (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23-24). In other words, the focus of our debates ought to be the focus of the Scriptures themselves.

Perhaps you might agree in theory, but what would this look like in practice? This principle can feel quite threatening when it gets personal.

Examples

For example, is there any passage whose main point is the timing of a rapture? Is there any passage whose main point is to spell out a specific millennial view?

While the book of Galatians and the latter half of Romans 3 clearly teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone as a main point, the particular mechanism for how that justification takes place is not given the same level of attention. For example, is the primary mechanism for justification the righteousness of Christ being credited to believers (imputation), or is it the attachment of believers to Christ through union with him (incorporation)? Perhaps there are other options as well, but such finer points occupy much theological debate.

What about the various denominational positions on baptism or the Lord’s Supper? Church membership? Styles of worship? Church government?

Again, I am not saying that such things don’t matter. Nor that we can’t or shouldn’t hold positions on them (and discuss or debate said positions). All I am saying is: Does the gravity and emphasis of such debates correspond to the gravity and emphasis of such matters in the Scriptures themselves?

To highlight the problem: If you can argue for predestination from Ephesians 1, or you can present a case regarding gender roles from Ephesians 5, but you cannot articulate the main idea of the letter of Ephesians (God uniting all things together in Christ) or explain how chapters 1 and 5 advance that argument—you may be spending too much time on matters of lesser importance.

Conclusion

Systematic theology has much importance. But if the majority of your theological reflection or debate involves systematic doctrines with proof texts, perhaps some shifting of attention is in order.