Session Two: Mark Dever
What is the difference between compromise and cooperation? How do we discern between primary and secondary doctrines? What is orthodox (right teaching) and how we can encourage one another to hold this truth with humility? How can we discern which doctrines are essential and which are open for disagreement among Christians? Mark Dever will seek to answer these questions in Session Two.
Below are our notes from the session. The entire audio of the session will be made available for free on the New Attitude website after the conference.
1.) Do we follow commands to purify or to unite?
Some Christians are “unity Christians.” They wear t-shirts that says, “Doctrine divides, love unites.” Or as one bishop recently said, “Heresy is better than schism.” On the other hand, some Christian are “purity Christians.” They are the fundamentalists among us. They will contend more quickly than they will cooperate. They seem to believe they have a “prophetic ministry” of correction. How do we take the best of both these positions?
2.) What are some common fights Christian’s have?
There are just so many. Is the Reformation over? Should Protestants and Catholics do their evangelism together? What about the Sabbath? Should we use organs or guitars? Is prophecy still happening today? Who should baptize? Who should be baptized? Are gender roles taught in the Bible for us today? Is the Bible inerrant? Calvinism or Arminianism? We could go on forever.
3.) What are we together for? What is our purpose in this cooperation?
The level of cooperation we want will determine how much agreement is needed. How close will the relationship be? There are different levels of agreement. We need to ask the question: What is the goal (or purpose) of agreeing with this person? For example, if you’re wanting to start a Bible study for the purpose of evangelism, you need to agree on the gospel. But if you want to plant a church, you need a greater level of agreement.
4.) What must we agree upon? What are the essentials?
Christian fellowship can only be had with those who share the Christian faith. We need to understand what must be agreed upon and how serious errors are. Not all errors are equal. A misunderstanding about church membership is not as important as a misunderstanding about Jesus Christ. Some errors have to be corrected, others can be endured. You can do without your appendix or your wisdom teeth, but you can’t go without your heart.
Here are three sources of truth in the area of doctrine, the first is primary, the latter two are sub-categories:
- Through our Bible: This is the ultimate standard and source of Truth.
- Through our Church: God has called us to be in local churches that teach the Bible well and accurately, in fellowship with people whose lives are submitted to God’s Word. It is the duty of the local church to define what must be agreed upon for Christianity and fellowship. Thank God for your elders and teachers. Pray for them and submit to their teaching.
- Through our Conscience: The conscience is inherent, but not inerrant. You cannot assume that your own conscience will always tell you the truth. It’s been effected by the Fall. It must be trained, educated, and strengthened.
Here are three things we must agree upon in order to believe in God and to be saved. These are essential—without which you cannot be saved:
- God: We have to believe in the one true God, that He is three-in-one, self-existing, morally perfect, characterized by holiness and love, and that He is by His own will our sovereign Creator, our Lord and our Judge.
- The Bible: We must believe that the Bible is how we know the truth about God. We can know what God is like because He has spoken—He has revealed Himself in His word. That is why you should attend a church that regularly practices expositional teaching.
- The Gospel: We must agree that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became incarnate—without this understanding we couldn’t uphold the truth of God’s triune nature—we must also confess Christ’s substitutionary death on the Cross, His bodily resurrection, His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and that He is returning someday. You will find that if you center your Christianity on the Cross you will find fellowship with others who also have the Cross at the center. You will share the same joy, even if you disagree on minor issues.
5.) What may we disagree about?
There are four questions we should ask ourselves when we disagree with a brother or sister in Christ: 1.) How clear is it in Scripture? 2.) How clear to is it among your fellow believers? 3.) How near is it to the gospel? 4.) What would the effects be if we allowed disagreement in this area?
Here are three test cases for discernment on non-essential doctrines:
- The Millennium: Revelation 20:2-3 talks about a millennium. So what is John referring to? Let’s take it through the four questions: How clear in Scripture? Not very. There are only two verses about it. How clear among others? Not very. Theologians and teachers are divided or uncertain. How near is it to the gospel? Not very. It may be important, but it is not an essential doctrine. What would be the effects of disagreement? In the case of Mark Dever’s church, none. They have a 150-year-old statement of faith, with nothing about the millennium. They have not experienced any division among the elders or the congregation.
- Prayers for the Dead: This is one that may seem insignificant. Maybe some think “it feels good to feel the communion of the saints throughout the ages.” Or perhaps they feel “close to those who have passed away.” A yet it suggests that justification is not complete. That the prayers of others are needed. This makes it a significant concern.
- Complementarianism and Egalitarianism: This is not an issue that is essential to the gospel. But sometimes non-essentials have added implications because of our time. As Ligon Duncan has said: “If there were a verse in 1 Timothy saying, ‘I do not permit an infant to be baptized’, we wouldn’t be having a paedo- versus credo-baptism debate. But there is one that says a woman may not serve as a teacher or elder.” It has been Mark Dever’s sober conclusion that this issue has become a watershed for the authority of Scripture. And when the authority of Scripture is undermined, the gospel is undermined.
6.) How can we disagree well?
How do we achieve the daunting command to love in all this? What do we owe to the person who differs form us? What can we learn from those who differ from us? You owe them love. You owe them respect.
When you’re in disagreement make it clear that you care more about them than you care about winning an argument. Listen carefully to what they say. Relate to them charitably, understanding what they mean, not just catching them on what they said. You’re goal shouldn’t just be to win points. You always want to represent the opposite perspective in such a way that you opponent would feel well represented. Figure out the goals you share.
Ask yourself the question: “What can I learn from this person?” If we’re more interested in winning an argument and saving our reputation than we are about learning the truth, then we need to recognize that in ourselves.
Disagreement between Christian friends allows us opportunity to express our love and to center together on the Cross of Jesus Christ.
Is this your witness? Are you known for being argumentative and quarrelsome? We want to be known more by what we’re for than by what we’re against. We should be known for being for the Gospel. In essentials unity. In non-essentials diversity. In all things love.
May 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Wow. I am impressed with the quality and completeness of these notes. I’ve been to conferences like this, so I know how hard it can be to get complete notes while trying to hear everything the speaker says and learn from it. I really appreciate the fact that you’re taking the time and putting the effort into making this material available for those who could not attend the conference. Out of curiosity, are you planning on putting the notes on the side-bar menu after the conference?
May 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I am delighted that time is being taken to focus on unity among disagreement, a massive issue these days. On the other hand, I am quite concerned with what are marked here as “things we must agree upon in order to believe in God and to be saved.”
For example: While I firmly believe in an orthodox conception of the Trinity, I see no reason to believe that the Arians — or anyone else who has a different understanding of the Trinity — should be labeled as non-Christians. While Paul (and the rest of the Scripture) clearly teaches Trinitarianism, he does not say “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Nicene Trinity, and thou shalt be saved.” It disturbs me that someone as respectable as Mr. Dever would link salvation itself with correct understanding of a theological point (important though this one is).
It also concerns me to see belief in a substitutionary atonement as a condition for fellowship — even for salvation! Such a hotly debated, widely disagreed-upon topic (that was by no means mainstream until the Reformation) should never be given such an important place. We should guard against the idea that we have to know how the atonement works for us in order for the atonement to work for us.
Finally, I am sad to see the Bible’s place in our epistemological scheme raised to a marker of salvation. So far from justification by faith, this list looks more like a doctrine of justification by evangelicalism. I pray I’ve misunderstood this message. But if I haven’t, I’m afraid that Mr. Dever has limited fellowship and salvation to evangelicals, and blocked off all others who believe in Jesus the Messiah.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
[...] Alex and Brett Harris: Session Two: Mark Dever [...]
May 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Ben, if substitutionary atonement wasn’t necessary for salvation, why did Jesus bother sacrificing Himself? He obviously deeply dreaded dying on the Cross, and yet He accepted it, because He knew it was the only solution for the people He loved so much.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I’m sorry for my miscommunication; what I meant was that belief in substitutionary atonement should not be considered necessary for salvation, not that Jesus’ actual substitutionary atonement was optional in any way. Of course I believe in substitutionary atonement, but I am not ready to cast into hell anyone who disagrees.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Ben P.,
Umm, I’m confused with what you’re saying. Substitutionary atonement - aka, Christ’s dying on the cross for our sins - is the only way anyone can be saved. If someone didn’t believe in this, how could they possibly be saved? This is like saying that you don’t believe in the chair you’re sitting on. Belief in Jesus and acceptance of His gift is the only way to be saved. Daniel made a good point; Jesus wouldn’t have died that death if anyone could get to heaven any other way. He chose to do it even though he could have just left us to die.
June 11th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Ben P.
I am also confused about what you said about Substitutionary atonement. What does it mean to believe the gospel if you reject the the central event?
Also, I can understand your hesistation about belief in the Bible as essential to salvation. It surprised me, too. However, after his explaination (and I would recommend that you download the message and listen to all he has to say), I came to understand what he meant. I imagine a person who becomes a Christian on their death bed would not need to state “I believe in the Bible” in order to go to Heaven. However, if a person lives as a Christian rejecting the Bible as God’s word and completely negelting it, how can they maintain their Christianity, not to meantion grow in godliness? The Bible is the only source where we can learn who God is, what He has done, and how we are to live. Without it, we are lost. It is our defense against sin (Ephesians 6:17), what we need to do what we are commanded (2 Timothy 3:16-17), our very life (Dt. 8:3). Pastors are repeatedly commanded to preach God’s word. If we disobey God in this, have we truly repented from our sins?
The church my mom grew up in has drifted from the Bible. When my mom was a child, the pastor was far more interested in current events than what God had to say, so that is what he preached on Sundays. God graciously saved my mom in spite of this, but she did not grow in God until she came to our current church where the Bible is preached. The church is now dying. It’s membership is reduced to a few old people who chose a man for pastor that neither knows nor agrees with the Bible. Sadly, my unbelieving great aunt who still attends is quite happy with him because he allows her to continue in ignorance as she lives they way she wants to. This is truly a tragedy. No matter what the church sings or says, can it be Christian?
I don’t mean to be argumentative. I think it is important to weigh everything we hear and not take a man’s word for it, no matter how “impressive” and godly he may be. While Mr. Dever is certainly a wise man and we would do well to listen to him, I am sure he would be among the first to say, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be acursed.” (Galatians 1:8) Let me encourage you as a sister in Christ to search the Bible for the answers.
July 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
To clarify what I understand from your comments the question being batted is, “is it entirely necessary that a Christian person hold the contemporary beliefs common to his contemporaries?” No. However it is entirely necessary for persons identified as Christians to hold beliefs that the Bible cannot compromise even when these beliefs compromise the contemporary. For if the belief of a contemporary, subjected to scrutiny relative to facts substantiated by the Bible, fails for any reason, then that contemporary by his belief regardless of class or status is not a Christian. The Bible and only the Bible is the standard that determines who is and who is not a Christian.
For example Jesus was born of a virgin for the explicit purpose that only he out of all his contemporaries is the only begotten son of God. Also regarding his resurrection he still at this time is the only holder of that distinction. For the rest of us regarding the fact that we are all here by the process of natural birth it is fact that the process of natural birth has excluded us from being a child of God. Jn. 1:13 NIV. For this reason it is ultra important for us to become born again by God to become children of God. Therefore it is of the most extreme importance for us to fully understand and enjoin ourselves by the belief of the faith that has been perfected by the crucifixion of Jesus to become born of God. Just as natural birth is common to mankind for natural life it is also fully necessary for mankind that there be one common proposal of faith to be come born of God for eternal life.
However contemporarily there is much argument, disagreement and contention. For there is no satisfactory contemporary proposal that explains the Way for us to become born of God that the Bible has not written objection against these contemporary proposals of belief. The fact is Jesus has said that the gate to use for the process of being born of God is small, very narrow, and only a few people ever find it and make every effort to use this gate. For if not you’re not a Christian.
After Jesus was crucified, rose from among the dead and ascended back to his father he was installed in the office of the high priest and relative to this is the fact that new law was put into effect. This new law described by the apostle Paul,
“the law was added so that the trespass
might increase.”
making it mandatory for each person by the faith of obedience to the authority of Jesus to obey this law to begin the process of becoming born of God to inherit eternal life as the reward. There are several facts regarding the crucifixion of Jesus relative to the new law that the world must understand first. The crucifixion of Jesus, God’s only begotten son, is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. Since it is fact that he in the form of a man has lost his life by bloodshed, and relative to the fact that anytime a man’s life is lost by bloodshed God demands an accounting directly to him. God as a demonstration of his love for the world, by the law of the faith of Christ, has made it the lawful requirement of everyone to by faith repent of the one sin of Jesus’ murder for the forgiveness of all sins. For Jesus’ crucifixion is the obedience of one man unto death caused by bloodshed and has by the new law made it impossible for the natural born person to escape from death by not having the faith to obey only him for life. The Christian believes this to be a Christian. Any other belief is not believed by a Christian. This should clarify things.