How much theological error is too much?

I was once taught that there are three levels of theological error - technical error, serious error, and fatal error.  (These categories may not be the most helpful, but we'll use them for the moment.)  So for example, someone who confuses God's aseity with His ubiquity is making a technical error that is simple and definitional with little or no consequence.  However, someone who believes that drinking alcohol is always immoral for everyone is in serious danger of being unnecessarily divisive and legalistic.  It is theological error with serious consequences.

Unfortunately, distinguishing serious error from fatal error is really tricky.  How much theological error is too much?  Can you reject God's immutability in favor of "process theology" and be a Christian?  Serious or fatal?  How about a mechanistic understanding of the sacraments?  Serious or fatal?  How about being a universalist?  Serious or fatal?  The list goes on and on.

In my dotage I am much more reticent to identify fatal error in someone who heartily affirms the Trinitarian and historical-Biblical-theological tenents of the Nicene Creed - even if they aren't familiar with the creed(s) at all.  Heck, I think you could potentially strip-down what it takes to be a Christian even more.  Hebrews 11:6 reads, "...because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."  Now clearly, Hebrews teaches a robust understanding of Christianity and the kind of faith that it entails.  And yet... faith is simple and should not be overly complicated with theological nuance.  Yes, we should pursue orthodoxy and Christian maturity, but we should be very cautious about citing fatal error in those who are simply immature and / or ill-taught.

I once had the opportunity to spend three hours with the Reformed theologian, John Gerstner.  I asked him, "Is believing in the tenents of the Apostles' Creed enough to be a Christian?"  He became very animated and said, "No!  Not anymore!"  He went on to say that the early creeds only dealt with controversies of the early church - there have been many important issues since then that simply must be affirmed and / or denied.  I agree that there have been many issues that need to be wrestled with, but I would put almost all of them in the category of serious error and not fatal error.

Perhaps the reason for my reticence is that I am fearful of my own error(s) - and trusting and hoping for mercy now and in judgment.  I willl be shown mercy as I show mercy, so I am in no hurry to condemn error as fatal if there is any hope or room for diagnosing serious error. 

Is this not the practical outworking of "sola gratia?"  How can those who hold to this be so quick to cite errors as fatal?  Perhaps I am just a liberal afterall...

:)

Comments

[Theisens]

Or, another possibility is that we are simply not the ones to determine what's in another man's heart. I'm not sure that theology is the fair determination of a man's heart...James says it's how live and treat others.

[JourneytoFamily]

I'm with you on everything, though I'm citing a fatal error on those against alcohol. (kidding)

I agree... I believe we will be shown mercy as we show mercy.

[Boneman]

Theisens - the issue is that doctrine is a heart-matter as well. How far off can one be in his doctrine and still be a Christian?

[Theisens]

I don't think that's a question we can or should be asking.

[Splash]

"I don't think that's a question we can or should be asking."

...said the devil as he cackled gleefully and forked another gobsmacked Methodist in the hinders.

Though I think Brett is right on with this post, particularly with: "faith is simple and should not be overly complicated with theological nuance."

[Boneman]

Theisens - I know you don't believe what you're saying because you deny that cults like Mormonism are Christian... as well you should.

[Theisens]

Splash--are you calling me the devil? There's that Christian charity and love; I had wondered where it went.

Boneman--What exactly do you think I'm saying? Maybe I misunderstood your post. I assumed you were talking about "Christian theological error." My bad.

[liang.jin.tang@gmail.com]

Wow !!! these are the EXACT thoughts I wanted to communicate yesterday at a mens fellowship group. Of course, I failed to communicate it as well as Brett does. I'll just direct them towards this link. Thanks Brett for doing all the work for me.

[Splash]

No, I was only saying the devil could use the same argument, existing as he does "in the details" of creed and doctrine and whatnot. (I'm just messing with you anyway, Theisens. I think we both appreciate Brett's overall point here.)

[Qui-Gon Jim]

I don't think our understanding is crucial. We're saved by His work and His grace. It's not as if we'll be given a test at the pearly gates, and at that time it will be determined if our theological knowledge meets a critical minimum - it will be whether or not we belong to our faithful Savior Jesus Christ. It's HIS work, His will, His knowledge of us that's crucial. That's why I can rest easy, and truthfully confess that my own understanding would fall far short of His standards.

[Boneman]

I think we would all acknowledge that faith has a element of understanding - or "notitia" as theologians would say. How much can notitia be off-base before crossing into a false-faith?

[RevK]

If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. 1 Cor. 8:2,3

[Theisens]

Splash--thanks, just messing right back at you. Sarcasm is my Spiritual gift.

Boneman--point taken. I'm just leary of even the hint of the "who's saved, who's not" mentality because, for one (as you stated), I may be totally off in my understanding, and my hope is in Jesus' grace and mercy, no matter where I'm at.

So, let's say you have someone who's way off on their "theological" base, but they trust Jesus and are living a life the way He lived and told us to live. I think it's short-sighted to say, "he's theologically off based and in error".

Discipleship takes a long time. (Look at Peter. He didn't even fully understand what God was up to, even when a blanket was laid at his feet) For us to expect "theological rightness" from those who are growing (which would be all of us), isn't really looking at the bigger picture.

Now, if we're speaking about theological traditions (reformed, baptist, methodist, etc.); that's a different story.

[Camilo]

I know I'm late to this, but when you asked the question, I thought of two men, both of whom Jesus verified to be in heaven:

Naaman, who spent his life worshipping in an idol temple, and who thought to bring some of Israel's soil back to Syria with him (unpack that!)

The thief on the cross, presumably a straying and criminal member of the covenant, whose life until he defended Jesus was probably not much to be proud of (not that I'm any better).

I'd be willing to bet that until they entered heaven, each of these men carried a whole boatload of theological error. They mainly just believed.

Just sayin'