Over at Reformation Theology (a blog I like), there is a recent post entitled Primary and Secondary Doctrines. I encourage you to read it here.
While I agree with most of what is written in the post, I have trouble with the post title itself. The author gives no definition of what a secondary doctrine is. He clearly believes that some beliefs are more important than others and suggests that some are worth dividing over while others are not. But why doesn't he define what a secondary doctrine is?
I submit that his post title should be Primary and Tertiary Doctrines. As I have written before, the bible makes it clear that there are some doctrines (gospel-centered) that we should divide over. We divide with unbelievers. There are also doctrines that we should discuss, but should not divide over.
The bible gives no evidence for what most people refer to as secondary doctrines. This term has come to mean doctrines that Christians divide over for church but not in fellowship in general.
I think this Reformation Theology post shows us just how ingrained the idea of primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines is. Because the author assumes that all three exist, he does not even bother to define them.
Let's do all we can to ensure that our beliefs and practices line up with scripture, not with our assumptions.