"It wasn't a potential atonement actuated by the sinner, it was an actual atonement initiated by the savior."

John MacArthur

who said it?

Should unity trump doctrine?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”

These words, translated variously as “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,” or, “unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things,” have often been assigned to St. Augustine and used as sort of a pious sounding get-out-of-debate free card for many theological difficulties.

There are a number of articles on the Internet that have tried to ascertain the authorship of these words.

Some have felt that it was St. Augustine, while more recently those in the know have cited Peter Meiderlin (Rupertus Meldeniu), a German Lutheran theologian. Even more enlightened researchers have attributed it to the 17th Century writing from Marco Antonio de Dominis.

De Dominis was educated by the Jesuits and was the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato. Due to political problems with the Roman Church, he ended up researching Church history and concluded that the papal system was not part of the true Catholic Church. Fearing the Inquisition, he apostatized and left for England in 1616. His vanity, avarice, and irascibility soon lost him his English friends so he decided to return to Rome. Once out of England his attacks upon the English Church were as violent as had been those on the Papacy and reflected uncompromising advocacy of the supremacy of the pope. He ended up recanting all he had written against the papacy – even declaring that he had deliberately lied in all that he had said against the Catholic Church. Back in Rome, he lived on a pension assigned him by the pope, but when the Pope died and his pension ceased, De Dominis again came into conflict with the Inquisition was declared a relapsed heretic.

So, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity” is not of Catholic origin via Augustine, nor is it a Protestant idea originating in Meiderlin. Instead, it is a quote from one of the most untrustworthy theologians in Church history: a twice-declared heretic who could not seem to unify with anybody!  quoted from Douglas Beaumont “The Origin of “In Essentials Unity…”

However, this misses the point.

In reality, although unity is important, this particular unity position is not even biblical.

The fact is we are commanded in Jude 3 to contend earnestly for the faith.

In other words, church leadership, as well as all believers, must take a stand on all the various doctrinal positions and teach them as the truths of the Bible. Even the hard ones. Even when some don’t agree or understand.

This doesn’t mean we hide opposing positions, but it does hold that multiple positions can’t all be correct. Church leadership is to lead to the best of their prayerful understanding and beliefs.

No Biblical verses directly support the “in essentials unity…” phrase and so most churches resort to Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8 – 10. But, these passages pertain to unsubstantiated beliefs of weaker brothers. For example, not eating meat offered to idols. The concept is for the stronger brother to not offend the weaker brother and tolerate their position out of love.

It is important to note, however, that this does not apply to doctrines.

Truth trumps unity if it’s the doctrines of the Bible.

Without this commitment, one easily resorts to 2 Timothy 4:3  whereby many will not endure sound doctrine, and wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate teachers in accordance to their own desires.

Is unity worth the cost of ignoring the truths of the Bible? I would submit that it’s a false unity that can easily lead to a false gospel. And no, it’s not worth it!