“But It’s Not a Salvation Issue!”
Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage, Gavin Ortlund. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020. Paperback, 163 pages.
This book tackles a thorny issue: which Christian doctrines are “hills to die on”? Are some doctrines more important than others? Is it legitimate to look at some doctrinal differences and say, “Well, that’s not a salvation issue, so we shouldn’t get hung up on it”?
These aren’t new questions. Ortlund mentions Calvin’s discussion of this in the Institutes, as well as Francis Turretin’s later discussion in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Many other Protestant theologians spilt much ink on it too. Post-Reformation theology clearly distinguished between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of faith. This distinction was often made in the context of pursuing unity between various Protestant factions.
Gavin Ortlund suggests we adopt a four-fold ranking of Christian doctrines:
- First-rank doctrines are essential to the gospel.
- Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the health and practice of the church. They’re often a legitimate reason for separation.
- Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology. They don’t justify separation.
- Fourth-rank doctrines are unimportant to gospel witness and ministry collaboration.
An example of a first-rank doctrine, according to Ortlund, would be the Trinity. Baptism (paedo- vs. credo-) is a second-rank doctrine, as is spiritual gifts (continuationism vs. cessationism), women in ministry (egalitarianism vs. complementarianism), and Calvinism vs. Arminianism. As examples of third-rank doctrines, he mentions creation days (old earth vs. young earth) and the 1000 years of Revelation 20 (premillennialism vs. post- and amillennialism). Fourth-rank doctrines would include musical instruments in worship or the number of angels.
How does Ortlund suggest we discern whether something is a first-rank doctrine? He offers four basic criteria:
- How clear is the Bible on this doctrine?
- What is this doctrine’s importance to the gospel?
- What is the testimony of the historical church concerning this doctrine?
- What is this doctrine’s effect upon the church today?
Using these criteria, Ortlund argues that another two examples of first-rank doctrines would be the Virgin Birth and justification by faith alone.
There is undoubtedly something appealing about Ortlund’s approach. For people in our Reformed tradition (“Liberated”/CanRC), it perhaps represents a more nuanced alternative to some of the old black-and-white thinking about theological differences, where every difference was in danger of being elevated to a heresy. Further, I appreciate how Ortlund wants to be careful in avoiding doctrinal minimalism while also striving for maximum unity with other believers. He provides many caveats and anticipates many (but not all) objections.
There is biblical support for the general idea of “theological triage.” Ortlund points out how Jesus spoke of “the weightier matters of the law” in Matt. 23:23. Just as there are weightier matters in the law, there are also weightier matters in the gospel. There are matters of first importance (1 Cor. 15:3), implying that there are those of less importance. Herman Bavinck pointed out how, when Protestant theologians were challenged about the biblical basis for the fundamental/non-fundamental distinction, they appealed to passages like Matt. 16:16, 1 Cor.2:2; 3:11ff.; Eph.2:20; Gal.6:14; and 1 Pet.2:6.[1]
Nevertheless, I have some major concerns. First, Ortlund’s criteria for first-rank doctrines aren’t going to automatically result in a broad consensus. For example, using his criteria, I could argue that infant baptism is a first-rank doctrine. I believe it is clearly taught in Scripture. Infant baptism presents a beautiful picture of the gospel of grace shown to a helpless sinner. The historical church at its best has always affirmed infant baptism. Excluding children from God’s covenant and baptism has a dramatic effect on how we think about the church of Jesus Christ and how we conduct ministry. Since it fits all the criteria, it is a first-rank doctrine.
Next, Ortlund doesn’t discuss the place of reason in determining first-rank doctrines. Some doctrines are deduced by what the Westminster Confession (1.6) called “good and necessary consequence.” Does a doctrine so deduced mean that it is any less clearly taught in Scripture?
The third concern isn’t unique to Ortlund; it’s an issue that goes back to the Post-Reformation discussions on fundamental articles. I haven’t been able to find anyone considering the role the creeds and confessions might play in theological triage (at least not amongst the Reformed; it does appear to be a factor in Lutheran discussions). Ortlund mentions creeds and confessions occasionally, but they don’t factor into how a doctrine might be ranked. This threatens to separate a theologian’s work from the confessions of the church.
My final concern has to do with the history of fundamental articles in Reformed theology. Ortlund mentions Francis Turretin’s discussion, but he doesn’t mention what Turretin’s son Jean-Alphonse did with the question of fundamental articles. The younger Turretin took his father’s work on this further, drastically minimizing the scope of fundamental articles. According to Martin Klauber, “Jean-Alphonse Turretini so reduced the scope of the fundamental articles that many of the distinctive Reformed doctrines were relegated to nonfundamental status.”[2] Richard Muller adds, “…the younger Turretin’s views were more characteristic of the age and its increasingly rationalistic approach to theological issues, together with its tendency to remove or to lessen the strictness of standards of subscription to the confessions.”[3] What resulted was a decline in confessionality. My concern is not only that this history is ignored, but that Ortlund offers no safeguards against this development in our own day.
There is a need to retrieve the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles, but in a confessional manner, perhaps tacking more along historical Lutheran lines. Perhaps we could distinguish between doctrines that are fundamental relative to the individual and salvation and doctrines that are fundamental relative to the church and its unity. The former could take its starting place from what we confess in articles 2 and 42 of the Athanasian Creed (“Whoever desires to be saved must above all things hold to the catholic faith…”); the latter from both the creeds and confessions held by the church.
Finding the Right Hills to Die On raises important issues deserving careful thought and further exploration. While I struggle with Ortlund’s approach, my hope is that, standing on his shoulders, others will see further and more clearly.
Originally published in Clarion 74.09 (July 4, 2025)
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (Vol.1) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 613.
[2] Martin I. Klauber, “The Drive Toward Protestant Union in Early Eighteenth-Century Geneva: Jean-Alphonse Turretini on the ‘Fundamenal Articles’ of Faith,” in Church History, 61 (1992), 348.
[3] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Vol.1) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 430.
