by Rev. William M. Brennan, TH.D.

Introduction

One of the greatest causes of division within Christianity is the tendency to assign equal authority to doctrines that Scripture itself does not treat equally. Churches frequently elevate denominational traditions and theological opinions to the status of essential articles of faith, while others reduce fundamental doctrines to matters of personal preference. Both errors obscure the biblical distinction between truths that define Christianity itself and those that represent legitimate theological reflection within Christianity.

The solution proposed here is a three-fold hierarchy of doctrinal weight. This framework seeks to distinguish between (1) universal Christian dogma, (2) communion-specific doctrinal formulations, and (3) theologoumena—legitimate theological opinions that faithful Christians may hold without disrupting ecclesiastical fellowship.

Although this model is particularly useful within Reformed Universalism, it is not dependent upon universalism itself. Rather, it provides a methodological framework for theological discourse that seeks to preserve catholic orthodoxy while allowing genuine freedom where Scripture has not spoken with equal clarity.

I. Dogma: The Universal Rule of Faith

The first and highest level consists of dogma. Dogma is not created by councils, confessions, or theologians. Rather, it consists of those truths universally revealed in Holy Scripture and universally confessed by the apostolic Church. Historically this body of truth has often been called the Regula Fidei—the Rule of Faith.

Dogma defines Christianity itself. To reject dogma is not merely to disagree with a denomination but to depart from the Christian faith.

Examples include:

The Trinity.
The full deity and humanity of Christ.
Christ's bodily resurrection.
Salvation through God's grace.
The future resurrection of mankind.
The final judgment.
The authority and divine inspiration of Holy Scripture.

These doctrines possess the highest degree of theological certainty because they arise directly from Scripture and are confirmed by the overwhelming consensus of the earliest catholic Church.

Dogma therefore functions as the doctrinal constitution of Christianity. It establishes the boundaries beyond which the Christian faith ceases to be Christian.

II. Communion Distinctives

The second level consists of what may be called communion distinctives.

These doctrines do not determine whether one belongs to the universal Church but rather identify membership within particular ecclesiastical communions.

The Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Augsburg Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Formula of Concord, and similar confessional documents all belong at this level.

These standards are immensely valuable. They summarize centuries of theological reflection and provide stability and identity for individual churches. Nevertheless, they are subordinate to Scripture and subordinate to the universal dogma of the Christian faith.

Examples include:

Infant versus believer's baptism.
Presbyterian versus congregational church government.
The precise understanding of the Lord's Supper.
Covenant theology versus dispensational theology.
Particular confessional formulations regarding predestination.

These questions often distinguish Presbyterians from Baptists, Lutherans from Anglicans, or Reformed churches from Methodists, yet they do not necessarily determine whether one belongs to Christ.

Recognizing this distinction encourages humility. One may firmly defend his communion's confession while recognizing that equally sincere believers may differ without abandoning the Christian faith.

III. Theologoumena

The third level consists of theologoumena.

Theologoumena are theological opinions developed through careful biblical reflection where Scripture has not spoken with sufficient explicitness to establish universal dogma.

This category has long existed within Christian theology but has often remained poorly defined.

Theologoumena include competing attempts to explain mysteries that Scripture leaves partially unresolved.

Examples include:

The timing of the millennium.
The nature of the intermediate state.
The origin of the soul.
Various theories concerning the extent of the atonement.
Competing understandings of eschatological chronology.
Various models of Christ's descent into Hades.
The relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches.

Within my own theological system, Evangelical Covenantal Universalism belongs primarily within this category.

This is a deliberate methodological choice.

Rather than claiming that universal restoration itself belongs to the universal Rule of Faith, I present it as what I believe to be the most biblically coherent explanation of the biblical data while recognizing that faithful Christians have historically reached different conclusions.

Such an approach promotes serious theological discussion without requiring every disagreement to become a test of orthodoxy.

Why This Distinction Matters

Many of the Church's historical controversies have arisen because theologoumena were elevated into dogma.

Once every theological opinion becomes a test of orthodoxy, every disagreement becomes a division.

History repeatedly demonstrates this tendency.

Questions regarding prophetic interpretation, election, church polity, sacramental theology, and eschatology have frequently produced unnecessary schisms precisely because Christians failed to distinguish between doctrines essential to Christianity itself and those belonging to legitimate theological inquiry.

Conversely, modern theological liberalism often commits the opposite error by reducing genuine dogma to mere opinion.

The result is doctrinal relativism.

The Church therefore requires both firmness and humility:

firmness regarding dogma,
fidelity regarding confessional identity,
humility regarding theologoumena.

Reformed Universalism and Doctrinal Humility

This hierarchy is especially valuable within Reformed Universalism.

Universal reconciliation has often been presented either as an unquestionable certainty or dismissed as outright heresy.

Neither approach adequately reflects the complexity of biblical theology.

By locating Evangelical Covenantal Universalism within the category of theologoumena, one acknowledges both its seriousness and its provisional character.

Its arguments should be evaluated by Scripture rather than accepted merely because they are ancient or rejected merely because they are controversial.

This posture also encourages meaningful dialogue with non-universalist Reformed Christians. We remain united in the dogmas that define Christianity while honestly debating important theological questions that belong to the realm of theological judgment rather than the essence of the faith.

The Church Always Reforming

The historic Reformed principle Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum Verbum Dei—the Church reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God—requires precisely this kind of doctrinal hierarchy.

The Church cannot reform if every inherited tradition is treated as infallible.

Nor can it preserve the faith if every doctrine is treated as negotiable.

A proper hierarchy of doctrinal weight provides the necessary balance. Dogma remains fixed because it rests upon divine revelation. Communion standards remain valuable because they preserve theological identity. Theologoumena remain open to continual refinement because faithful Christians continue to seek a fuller understanding of God's inexhaustible truth.

Conclusion

Christian theology flourishes when it learns to distinguish certainty from probability, apostolic doctrine from denominational formulation, and revealed truth from theological inference.

A three-fold hierarchy of doctrine preserves both unity and liberty. It protects the essential truths of the Christian faith while permitting vigorous theological investigation in areas where Scripture has left room for faithful disagreement.

Such a methodology neither weakens orthodoxy nor encourages relativism. Rather, it reflects a confidence that God's revelation is sufficiently clear where He intended certainty and sufficiently mysterious where He intended humility. In recognizing these distinctions, the Church is better equipped to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints while continuing to reform itself according to the authority of Holy Scripture.