Episode Transcript
[00:00:06] Speaker A: Welcome to the Truth Exchange podcast. This is a weekly program with Doctor Jeffrey J. Ventrella where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe, answering questions about worldview, cultural apologetics and other miscellaneous items. I'm your host, Joshua Guillotine. And this is another edition of the director's bag.
We're back with the director's mailbag and we have a number of questions that mainly have come in from x as well as Facebook. These questions are regarding two directors dictas that came out a number of weeks ago on the issue of churches dealing with doctrinal issues, secondary issues, and so on. The first dicta was called Christ, tribalism and the hyphenated christian life. And the second one is idols of history is older or newer. Better. That being said, let's jump into the question. So the first question is from somebody on X. And they said, does holding to doctrinal distinctives count as preference or precepts? And it might be helpful, Doctor Ventrella, for you to define what you mean by preference as well as what you mean by precepts.
[00:01:25] Speaker B: Sure. No, I appreciate the question, and that's very much a searching question. The idea is that we are called to have precepts. We are to believe the faith that's been delivered once for all. But with respect to that, there are practices that accrue very good practices sometimes that are not necessarily required for an orthodox Christian. I like to think of it in terms of you've got the good ship orthodoxy that's going through the oceans of time. And as it's cutting through the water, there may be some barnacles that form on the outside of the hole. Well, those barnacles go along with the good ship orthodoxy, but they're not part of the good ship orthodoxy. So, for example, to take a very pedestrian example, we always have our church services at 10:00 a.m. not 11:00 a.m. well, that would be a very clear preference and not a precept because the scripture itself doesn't dictate when that particular time of worship should occur. Oh, our services are 90 minutes, not 60 minutes. Well, the scriptures don't dictate. Those are preferences. Those are good practices, but they're not necessarily required. So that's the distinction between preferences and precepts. When we get to the issue of christian doctrine, it gets a little sticky because we really love our precepts. We really love our hymnals or not. We really love the nature of the musical accompaniment that we use or not. And those are actually preferences. My view would be that preferences are anything in addition to what we might call the ecumenical creeds of the christian faith, which are true at all times, in all places, and for all people. They would include things like the apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Constantinople Creed, the formula of Chalcedon. Those are things which must be believed. And if they are not believed, and if they are not adhered to, or if they are rejected, that person then stands outside of the christian faith. And then as doctrine develops, we've got traditions and denominations that have particular convictions about things, but they're not necessarily precepts that bind all christians in all places, in all times. Let me give an example. So in the Bible, God's word, special revelation, only two commandments are numbered. The first and greatest commandment, and the second commandment love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. First and second. We have then a summary what we might call the moral law of God, which is called the decalogue, the ten words. But when God gave those to Moses, they weren't numbered.
And then if we move forward in church history, we see that the very first Protestants, the Lutherans, numbered the ten Commandments in the very same manner that the medieval catholic church numbered the commandments. And yet subsequently we see that on other reformed traditions re numbered the ten Commandments. Those are the preferences, they're not precepts. We can take it one level further.
So in the continental reform tradition, following John Calvin and the lowlands and so forth, we have a particular understanding of the fourth commandment. What I will call the fourth commandment, the Sabbath.
It is different from what our friends in the island of England and then north to Scotland call it. They have a different view of the Sabbath. I would say those are strong convictions, but they are in the level of preference, not precept. Let's take it one level further, again, taking our reformational heritage. So on the continental version of the faith, it is said that assurance is the essence of faith. But then when we get to the Westminster assembly, it said faith is not of the essence of faith. Now, I know the debates there we can talk about. Is that a quantitative or a qualitative issue? The point is that these denominational distinctives are actually in the area of preferences. Now, they may help us, and we have convictions about those things, and that's a good thing. But I would say from a global perspective, those would line up with the idea of a preference, not a you must believe this, or you're denying the faith type of precept. I hope that's clear for our listeners?
[00:06:26] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, I think that is. And this next question follows that kind of that line of thinking. And I actually have two stories that I think might pair well with it, or examples. At what point does precepts slash preferences become preferences and not precepts? At what point do we break fellowship with those who are in this type of idolatry? Or maybe it might be the writer, forgive me, writer on x. At what point does a preference become an idolatry? And I can think of a couple of stories or examples.
A number of years ago, our friend Dustin Messer, who was involved in our gospel truth, pagan lies symposium that we had a number of years ago, he was a minister in the presbyterian church in America, and some of his convictions changed, and specifically, I think, with polity. And I'm sure there were other issues that were going on, but he's now in the anglican church. Or a more personal story. A number of years ago, I was in a more broadly evangelical church, and Lael and I had our first child, and I started really wrestling. What do I do with my childhood?
How do I. How do they become visible as a visible part of the church? And the church that I was a member at the time held to, it was an EV free church. And so the bylaws allow for a peyto and a credo Baptist position. That is, you can baptize your child or you can simply dedicate your child. Either way, the church bylaws allow for both. And the elders of the church were all credos, and they didn't have anyone to baptize my poor son. So we wound up, I went, actually, I came to you and I said, jeff, what should I do? And there were a number of other issues going on in this church. And you gave me some wisdom, you gave me some points, and in the end, I wound up leaving that church and transferring into a presbyterian church where I was able to have my son baptized.
Were those kind of situations for Dustin or for me idolizing a precept or a preference?
Can you help us with that?
[00:08:39] Speaker B: Yeah, I think we have to be very careful that there and understand there's a gap between having a preference and making that preference an idol. And the way you do that is you treat it as everyone must believe this, or they're outside the faith. And I think that becomes really the litmus test with respect to that. And I respect both of you, and I think those are great stories with respect to that. No, those would not be it. But when you make an idol, is making something more than it is and subordinating God to it, that everyone must, in effect, bow to that particularized conviction. I tell the story about people who are getting along until they realize, one use the blues psalter hymnal, and one used the red psalter hymnal, and the guy called the guy a heretic. True story. Well, that's clearly elevating something well beyond what it should be. But it gives us, I think it should give us this distinction between preference and precept, a mode of humility so that we're not trying to bind consciences. One of the great things about the Westminster standards is it has an entire chapter on the conscience, and that liberty of conscience is a very important piece of our christian anthropology. We don't coerce people, and I say that because, unfortunately, there are some people today within broader Christendom that are wanting to reinstitute the idea of coercing people to faith, saying, well, it's good for them.
No, that would be inconsistent with the biblical story. With respect to that, I hope we've gotten to the person's question, but I think that's really where the rubber meets the road. With respect to that.
[00:10:25] Speaker A: What I appreciate about the way that you've answered this, Jeff, is you allow for christian men and women to truly be, or to be catholic in the truest sense of the word. And another example, or somebody that I like to read often, is a dutch theologian who's gone to glory, Hermann Bavink. And you read some of his, who is deeply committed to his dutch continental reformed tradition, but was incredibly catholic in the sense of how he dealt with people who were not Dutch reformed. And I think that would be such an incredible encouragement. It's almost like we can look across the aisle or we can look across the different churches and say, you know what? You may not hold to the distinctives that I hold to, but you are still my brother, and we can work together for the good of the kingdom 100%.
[00:11:18] Speaker B: That is such a missing note. I used to teach a course called sex in the city of God dealing with this idea of catholicity. Sex is s e c t s. So the idea is, and it should not be, we ought to love one another. This is the distinctive that Jesus says will mark those who follow him to the unbelieving world, is our affection and love for one another. But getting back to the question, too, the idea of when do you break fellowship? I believe it's when someone denies, kind of like the good ship orthodoxy stands outside of what the christian faith teaches at all times. For all people in all ways. That's the faith of Catholicity. So, for example, I don't happen to have convictions concerning the end times that we would call dispensational. But I would never say that holding dispensationalism requires me to break fellowship with someone. However, in certain reformed circles, you're seeing something called full or hyper preterism. That's a manner of interpretation that essentially says the second advent has already occurred. Now, someone who holds to that position, they are outside of christian orthodoxy, because all the creeds that we affirm say that Jesus is coming again. There's a beautiful, glorious second advent with the resurrection of the dead, some to the living, some to everlasting perdition. So you have to look at it in that state. Those are means for doing that. And then I would also say you break fellowship with those who consistently, persistently, and without repentance violate the ethical admonitions of those ecumenical creeds. So, for example, today, the ecumenical creeds, let's take the apostles creed. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. There are ethical implications that flow from the fact that there's a creator and the creation. That includes, what did he do at creation? He created mankind in his image and likeness. He created mankind male and female. He created marriage as a creational ordinance, so on and so forth. If someone says, oh, two men can be married or three people can be married, no, that would be outside of christian orthodoxy because it violates the ethical norms that are implied to the ecumenical creeds.
[00:13:52] Speaker A: This writer on Facebook says a question about retrievalism. Some of the methods I see in an older era of life and theology were solid. Foundationally. Holding to these methods seems like an application of the fifth commandment. Honor your father and mother, or like not moving the stone that your father put into place. There is a lot of confusion out there. And I find myself going back to this practice of theology and life because I feel like I don't have a footing to go forward. And the retrieval aspect seems helpful. Is there another way that you would suggest is holding to ecumenic creeds also retrievalism?
[00:14:37] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a very thoughtful question. I appreciate it. So a couple things there. So there's retrieving that which has gone before, which is the entirety Christian of the christian faith. Jesus lived, died according to the scriptures, and was resurrected on the third day. So we're recalling that. So we're not anti historian at all. And it is true that we can learn from those who've gone before.
I tell my evangelical friends, that church history didn't begin with Billy Graham. Or to put it a little more trendily, it did not begin with Matt Chandler or, you know, name some contemporary person. But by the same token, to our catholic friends, I say church history did not end with Thomas Aquinas.
So there is a sense in which we ought to, and we ought to learn and be cognizant because it produces humility. But then it gets to the problem I've talked about before is, okay, what are you going to retrieve?
Retrievalism that I was writing about has elevated what I've retrieved over everyone else's. Well, again, how are you going to name the ten commandments? Are you going to do it the way the Lutherans do it? Or you can do it the way the Presbyterians do it. What is actually being retrieved is assurance, the essence of faith, or assurance, not the essence of faith. What are you going to retrieve? So the problem is when we just, instead of taking that in a posture of reception, oh, this is really interesting. I like the way they phrase that. This really helps me understand my faith better. We all of a sudden make it a not only a mantra, but a litmus test for orthodoxy. That's the problem when I say retrieval isn't because what it does, it absolutizes a particular point in history, and it's not true for all people at all times and in all ways. So I think that's the danger we're looking at. So are the ecumenical creeds a form of that? Well, not really, because we are dealing with that which is true again for all christians in all places and at all times. This is the faith delivered to the saints. And these things came about before the canon was concretized. So we need to understand this was the apostolic faith that we have, and those are the borders of orthodoxy.
[00:16:58] Speaker A: Amen. This concludes the recording of the director's bag. For more resources from Truth exchange, please visit us online at www. Dot Truth.
You can follow us on x as well as Facebook for more updates and content related to Truth exchange. Be sure to join us next week for more questions from the director's bag. I'm your host, Joshua Guillo, and this is the Truth Exchange podcast.
