Grosey's Messages

Why was it so important for Turretin to distinguish between different kinds of doctrine and different kinds of error? In his own context, Turretin was facing two distinct threats. First, he was concerned by Socinian and Roman Catholic claims that their distinctive doctrines were fundamental truths of the faith. But, second, Turretin was concerned about other orthodox Protestant traditions that were dividing over nonessential matters of doctrine. In other words, Turretin was opposing not only the elevation of what he regarded as false doctrines into necessary articles of faith but also the elevation of true but secondary doctrines into necessary articles of faith. This concerned Turretin because it led to unnecessary separation among true Christians. For instance, he faulted "the more strict Lutherans who (to render a union with us more difficult) extend fundamentals more widely than is just, turn almost every error into a heresy, and make necessary those things which are indifferent." Here it is evident that Turretin's concern about elevating nonfundamental doctrines to a fundamental status derives from a deeper concern about the unity of the church. The problem with making every error a heresy is that it "renders union more difficult."

The Protestant Reformer John Calvin voiced a similar concern. In his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin warned against the error of "capricious separation" from true churches and Christians. He argued that what marks a true church is "the pure ministry of the word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments." If a church possesses these marks, "we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults."  Calvin further allowed that there may be errors in the way a church practices these two marks, and yet it is a true church: "Some faults may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church." But how do we know which errors are severe enough to require us to separate from a particular church? Calvin developed an answer to this dilemma by appealing to a distinction between primary and secondary doctrines:

For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God's mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith.

As an example of the latter kind of doctrine—those over which it is not necessary to break the unity of faith—Calvin identifies a difference of opinion among those who think that the souls of believers fly to heaven upon death, and those who would not dare to define the place to which souls go, but acknowledge that they live to the Lord. Citing Philippians 3:15, Calvin insists that such differences of opinion would not be a source of division apart from "unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness." He goes so far as to assert that churches will not survive apart from a willingness to tolerate errors on lesser matters:

A difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians. . . . Either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation.

Calvin argued strenuously and at great length against the sin of schism, emphasizing that the church will always be mixed and imperfect until judgment day, and that much separatism comes from pride rather than holiness.

The Unity of the Church Is Essential to the Mission of the Church

The concern Calvin and Turretin expressed about unnecessary division stemmed from the value they attached to the unity of the church. We should maintain this concern today. Some of us have a natural bent to worry about doctrinal minimalism. We are eager to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), and we are on alert against any watering down of biblical truth in the face of cultural pressure. This is good, but we must be careful that we are not naive about how destructive sins in the opposite direction can be. It is false to think that doctrinal minimalism is necessarily or inherently more destructive than doctrinal sectarianism. Errors in both directions can diminish our gospel impact.