In the Christian faith, what issues are truly worth debating?

Thus a small matter may involve vast issues. Some seem to think that every small matter does, but happily that is not true. If it were, we should have to he fighting to the death over every scruple of mint, anise, and cummin, whilst neglecting the weightier matters of judgment, mercy, and faith. But it is true that some small-looking questions decide principles of immense magnitude. How are we then to discern the really important questions? Ah, I grant that there is a margin for dispute. Nevertheless I think that with candour, grace, and discretion we may count on always finding a sure guidance. If we seek it as Moses did, we shall find it as he did — in the word of God. It is well to be not hasty to judge in disputes that seem trivial. For instance these two words that men fought over once, homoousian and homoiousian, seem nearly the same: in fact there is literally only an iota, a Greek i, between them; yet they are as wide as the poles asunder; for one means a true Christ and the other a false. But on the other hand where it is a question of customs, prejudices, of "meats," there is no question of principle at all involved, except indeed these principles, "Forbearing one another in love," "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended or made weak:" "Let your moderation (epieikes) be known unto all men."

303 I hardly ever heard a person (a charge from which I do not pretend to be exempt) who did not in preaching lose his balance a little between human responsibility and sovereign grace. In earnest love to souls he would speak to win, so as to compromise the absolute need of grace; or, in carefulness to shew the work was God's, dim the fulness of love in his presentation of it. This is human infirmity, and we must humble ourselves and have patience. When I went to Plymouth, a vast body of the Christians there were dear old Dr. Hawker's disciples. I did not agree with his statements, though my heart might long after his true and earnest love to his Master. The other great body of Christians were Wesleyans, with whom too I should be very far indeed from agreeing; and each of these would have denounced the other as teaching most awful doctrine. I regret the extremes, but I thank God He blest both. Between these there may be much imperfect teaching, and yet, where Christ is loved, and foundation-truth held, and souls earnestly sought, God, blessed be His name, will bless and does bless in spite of the infirmity. All error is mischievous, for we are sanctified by the truth. Still, we have to do with a patient and gracious God; and, while we never can justify any mistake, where the truth is held He will bless. I say this, that we may discuss peacefully what is an important doctrine, without denouncing one who is not clear.

But have not all here a most simple basis of true unity? We side with God — we take up, patiently and prayerfully, if painfully, that which has occasioned the breach. Is it a matter about which God's word expresses His mind? Then the only thing to be done is to own that mind — to bow to Him. On the other hand, is it a matter practically immaterial, where patience and forbearance would accomplish what suspicion and force could not do? Then the path is equally clear. May there ever be grace among His own to seek to be with God according to His word, and they will ever be with one another also. Mere ebullition of love to saints, no matter how real, can never take the place of a clear, thorough examination of the difficulties in the light of God's word. To ignore difficult questions, is but to invite fresh and more hopeless complications. But we must return to our narrative.

The issue of agreeing together with other believers is one of the most difficult we face. When should I insist on what I believe to be right, and when should I give way to others who believe something different to be right? Most of the disagreements and divisions among Christians have something of this in them.

The question of making a stand on some issues and giving way on others is a difficult one and requires much prayer. To a large extent it is a question of correctly judging what is fundamental and what isn't, and that can only be done quietly before the Lord with His word.

We must find elsewhere the principles that regulate assembly discipline in such cases. The whole question as to whether it is a matter for assembly discipline, is whether the doctrine taught is fundamental or not. For this, every Christian has the means for judgment — the Bible — and the responsibility for making that judgment. As to what is not fundamental, one could not expect all to have the same competency.

Necessarily, the things in which one has to yield here, therefore, are things indifferent. That is what the apostle is speaking of, of meats and drinks and days. It is supposed that on both sides the authority of the Lord is owned. One cannot be really liberal in things that are not one's own. One can give up one's own liberty where it is simply a question of that, and not only we can, but we ought. The supposition here is of religious scruple entirely, not of people without conscience, but of conscience in fact rigidly governed by that which to them, whatever be the truth of it, is the will of the Lord. If a man eats, he eats to the Lord, or if he eats not, it is still to the Lord; if he observes the day, he observes it to the Lord, or to the Lord he does not observe it. Here a question may be raised with regard to the Lord's Day. How does the principle here affect that? It would seem that it does not come into the question; just because the Lord's Day is given us not in the way of legal command, but as a privilege which must be accepted as privilege in order for the observance to be anything really acceptable to God, — not that it is supposed that a Christian could have a scruple religiously about observing the day in this case or on this ground. Religious scruples are the whole matter here and who could scruple to avail himself of the privilege of giving up a day to the Lord, a day free for him to be occupied with his own things, and in such a manner as we find Scripture before us? Question here, therefore, could scarcely be made. What the apostle has before him is, of course, as the meats and drinks show, the Jewish distinction of meats and days, which has passed away, but which, nevertheless, may have a real power over the minds of some who realize that these things were once given of God, and who do not see how He has brought us out of them. Here the principle applies which the apostle has stated elsewhere, that to those who were under the law he became as under the law, "not being myself under the law," as he carefully adds; "that I might gain those that are under the law." These are the questions, but the principle as we have said, the first principle here, is that the conscience is to be before the Lord alone; and that we are to leave every Christian free to act before God. We must not judge. The Lord will do that. "Every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue confess to God." It is of the first importance that in every question of conscience this should be maintained.

We shall recognize, moreover, that these questions of eating, or regarding days, of meats sacrificed to idols, and feasts, and shambles, and the like, are, after all, of minor importance. The kingdom of God does not consist of such things, but of "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (verse 17), and hence these are the things to be diligently pursued as of prime importance. It is therefore well to maintain a spirit of yieldingness in regard to the minor matters, rather than imperil righteousness, or peace, or the spiritual joy of saints, by standing on one's rights. Liberty may be mine but it is well to waive it for the sake of fraternity so long as responsibility towards the Lord is not impaired thereby. This is emphasised not only in verse 21 of our chapter but also in 1 Corinthians 8:9-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:23-31.

But it may be well to add here that nothing can be less of the Spirit of God than to apply to minor differences of a disciplinary sort the rigour which is an absolute duty where it is a question of the true Christ or a false. Such a mistake is turned by the great enemy to the scattering of those whom Christ died to gather together in one. Even doctrine in general, unless fundamental, is not a Scriptural ground for so extreme a course. Still less is it due to a difference about the institutions of Christianity, whether baptism or the Lord's Supper. But the doctrine of the Christ does claim the allegiance of every saint; and he who undermines His person is to be discarded not only publicly but from private recognition at all cost.

Certain truths are at the foundation of Christianity itself as a whole. Others have to do with its efficacy or the making of it good towards men. There are, thirdly, some which relate to the means of its reception, and even of its communication. Thus, for instance, we find at the very root of Christianity the existence of one God, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, His humanity, and such like doctrines. Just as the existence of one God was the fundamental truth of Judaism, and the truth alters not, so likewise the revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and, in connection with that, the revelation of the Person of Jesus, distinguish essentially Christianity. Roman Catholic theology admits this.

We must begin by making a frank assertion. We can and must be dogmatic as to the revealed essentials of the Christian faith. The being of the Godhead, His creatorial work, the incarnation of the Son of God, the atoning character of His death, the glorious meaning of His resurrection and ascension, the place and portion of the believer in Christ, the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the resurrection of the saints thereat, the full inspiration of Holy Scripture, the resurrection of the wicked dead, and their eternal judgment—all these we must affirm with emphasis and resolve.