Waterland’s Taxonymy
Daniel Waterland offers a helpful rule for determining what constitutes fundamental doctrine. He does so in consideration of what is essential to the “Christian covenant.” The Christian covenant contains the following articles: a founder and principal covenanter, a subject capable of being covenanted with, a charter, a mediator, conditions to be performed, aids or means to performance, and sanctions to bind the covenant.
1: Principal Covenanter
A covenant supposes an author or founder and such is God the Father who has made a covenant of grace and salvation with mankind in and by Christ. It necessarily follows that the existence of this principal covenanter must be fundamental, such that to deny his existence entails fundamental error. It is not the bare existence of the deity that is fundamental, but the belief in such a deity includes the belief in all his perfections and attributes without which he cannot be understood to be God. To deny a necessary attribute of God is tantamount to denying his existence. Additionally, and referred to this head, is belief that this God is our creator, preserver, and governor.
Lest we conclude that this only entails a belief in a generic deity, the god admitted by philosophers and poets, but a specific God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has revealed himself in the Old and New Testaments. It is requisite to know not only that there is a God, but also who this God is. On account of this, those who deny the God that has revealed himself in either testament (Marcionites, Manichees, etc.) are in fundamental error.
2: Capable Subject of the Covenant
A covenant is never made without atleast two however. A principal covenanter supposes a subordinate covenanted. Thus, fundamental to the Christian covenant is the notion that man is a subject capable of being covenanted with, possessed of freedom of will which renders him a moral agent, the ability to discern between good and evil. To deny the capable subject or the objective existence of good and evil and their distinction thus entails fundamental error.
3: Charter of Foundation
A covenant supposes a charter, or a constitution. In the Christian covenant, the Sacred Scriptures are the said charter, and thus to reject or disbelieve the divine authority of them is fundamental error.
4: Mediator
Not every covenant supposes a mediator, but certainly the Christian covenant does. Thus a fundamental truth to the Christian system is the acknowledging Jesus as Messiah. We must believe that Jesus is Messiah according to the tenor of the Holy Bible, and so we must believe that he is very God and very man, yet one Christ.
Referred to this head as well is Christ’s expiation, atonement, or satisfaction rendered by his death for sinners. To place one’s own righteousness in the stead of Christ’s meritorious sacrifice is thus to subvert the gospel and commit egregious error.
5: Conditions
Every covenant supposes conditions to be performed, which have a certain relation to promises and threats consequent to the performance of said conditions. The conditions of the Christian covenant are repentance and a holy life. To deny the necessity of holiness or evangelical obedience is to commit fundamental error.
6: Aids
Man stands in need of aid and help in order to fulfill the conditions of the covenant. To deny these aids is to deny the covenant. In this view, the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper constitute fundamental doctrine, and the denial of their use and necessity is fundamental error.
The chief of all aids however is the assistance and guidance fo the Holy Spirit and thus the affirmation of his existence, personality, and divinity is fundamental doctrine as well.At this juncture, Waterland notes that we are thus to assent to the Trinity as well, and the denial thereof constitutes fundamental error.
7: Sanctions
Covenants are attended with sanctions which bind the covenant and give it its due force and efficacy to secure obedience thereto. Entailed in this is the doctrine of a future state, the Resurrection, Final Judgment, and Heaven and Hell. To overturn these entails foundation subverting error.
Having produced this taxonymy and rule, Waterland hastens to note that it is not necessary to make an exhaustive list of fundamental doctrines. Drawing on the analogy of a doctor, he proclaims that
The ablest physicians would not perhaps undertake to give us an exact catalogue, or determinate number of all the essentials of huma life, or of all the fatal distempers, or mortal wounds incident to the animal frame: But they could easily give in a competent list of either kind; and when any particular case comes before them, they can for the most part judge, by the rules of their art, what means may be necessary to preserve life, and what will as naturally tend to destroy it. In like manner, tho’ divines take not upon them to number up with exactness all the verities essential to the life of Christiantiy, or all the errors subversive and destructive of it, yet they can specify several in each kind with unerring certainty, and have certain rules whereby to judge, as occasion offers, of any other, and this suffices in the essentials of faith, as well as in the essentials of practice.[1]
Many will note however the difficulty in discerning the exact line of division between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines. Because of this difficulty, it is a fools errand and the distinction is thereby invalid. As Waterland notes however, we do not take the same attitude towards discerning right and wrong in moral actions in particular situations. It is often difficult to discern the line of demarcation, but the difficulty of discernment in particular application does not demonstrable verity of the distinction.
Waterland, perhaps more controversially, notes that the seeming difficulty in theory in not replicated in practice. When a case of reasonable doubt about whether a doctrine is in fact fundamental, the known rule is to choose the safer side, which he considers to be peace and charity. Until said doctrine can properly be demonstrated to be fundamental, the maintainer should be treated like a weaker brother, but a brother nonetheless. If the fundamental error is rigorously insisted upon however, or sinful terms whatever are imposed upon us, a breach of communion and fellowship must occur.
Herman Witsius’s Rules
In addition to Daniel Waterland, plenty of Christians have given sustained reflection to the distinction of fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines. Herman Witsius gives a separate series of rules for determining whether a doctrine is fundamental or not. 1. They must be found in Holy Scripture. 2. It must be clearly stated such that an attentive laymen could find it out. 3. It is such that true faith in Christ and repentance cannot subsist without it. 4. Articles that God has attended with a threat of destruction to the denial thereof are fundamental. 5. What Scripture calls a foundation or another equivalent word is fundamental. 6. Doctrines necessary to be previously understood in order to assent to an already essential article. 7. When a more doubtful doctrine is called necessary in relation to a doctrine whose necessity we had been less disposed to question.
Further, Witsius notes the difficulty, or perhaps impossibility, of determining the particular number of fundamental doctrines. Further, it is not necessary for us to so produce a list. The only necessity is that we should strive to gain in knowledge of all doctrine revealed by God, and grow in the knowledge of the mystery of God and Christ. Further, Witsius gives helpful caution against the attempt to specifically number them, as it tempts us to ascend to the tribunal of God and pronounce unwarranted anathemas upon our neighbors. We may not admit them into our church fellowship, but we should be trepidatious in condemning them to Hell.[2]
In the next post, we’ll engage with other rules given for determining fundamental doctrines.
[1] Waterland, Discourse of Fundamentals, 24-25.
[2] Witsius, Sacred Dissertations, 16-33.
The Saybrook Platform 