Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Carl

unread,

Oct 13, 2007, 12:15:11 PM10/13/07

A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy
by Robert M. Bowman

Part One: The Case for Doctrinal Discernment

For most Christians today, the challenge of learning how to discern orthodox
from heretical doctrine has apparently not been faced. Either they treat
doctrine as minimally important and so regard charges of "heresy" as rude
and unloving, or they treat doctrine as all-important and so regard anyone
who disagrees with them in the slightest as a heretic. In short, most
believers seem to think either that there are almost no heretics or that
almost everybody outside their own little group is a heretic.

The cause of doctrinal discernment, then, is in serious jeopardy. Although
anticult and discernment ministries are mushrooming everywhere, many of them
operate on the basis of an excessively narrow understanding of orthodoxy.
Consequently, such groups are charged deservedly with "heresy hunting" and
discredit the practice of doctrinal discernment. At the other extreme -- and
often overreacting to such heresy hunters -- are those within the Christian
community who reject any warnings of heresy among professing Christians.

In this two-part article I will attempt to set forth a balanced approach to
the issue of doctrinal heresy. In this first part I will present a biblical
case for the practice of discerning orthodox from heretical doctrines. In
the second part I will offer guidelines for doctrinal discernment.

In order to make this article as useful as possible, I will avoid making
references to specific heretical or suborthodox groups, doctrines, and
practices. This is so it may be read without conflict by persons in
religious groups which discourage reading literature that criticizes their
beliefs. In addition, I will avoid quoting and citing sources other than the
Bible so that what I say can stand as much as possible on its own. A
bibliography of recommended reading will be provided at the end of Part Two.

My own theological convictions are those of Protestant evangelicalism. Most
of what I have to say in this article, however, is compatible with other
Christian traditions as well.

Glossary of Key Terms

aberrational: Off-center or in error in some important way, such that the
doctrine or practice should be rejected and those who accept it held to be
sinning, even though they may very well be Christian. Also called aberrant.

apostasy: A falling away or departure from a previously maintained orthodox
position (as in certain denominations which once held to orthodoxy but have
rejected it). Adj.: apostate.

biblical: Agreeing with or faithful to the teaching of the Bible. Whatever
is contrary to its teaching is unbiblical, though this word is usually used
only when the biblical teaching violated is clear and of vital importance.

cult: A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining
fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: cultic (may be used with reference to
tendencies as well as full cult status).

denomination: A religious body originating as a Christian movement or sect
and generally classified as a Christian body regardless of its doctrinal
orthodoxy.

discern: Identify the true nature of a spirit, doctrine, practice, or group;
distinguish truth from error, extreme error from slight error, the divine
from the human and the demonic.

doctrine: Content of teaching intended to be accepted and believed as truth.

dogma: Doctrine which a church or sect expects all its members to accept in
order to remain in good standing; or, one which a church or sect expects its
members to accept simply on the church's or sect's authority. Adj.:
dogmatic.

excommunication: A church disciplinary action in which a person who refuses
to repent of promoting heretical views, or of engaging in gross sin, is no
longer accepted as a member of the church. Such a person may not participate
in the ordinances of the church, may not teach or minister in any way, and
in extreme cases may be asked to refrain from attending church meetings.

heresy: Doctrine which is erroneous in such a way that Christians must
divide themselves as a church from all who teach or accept it; those
adhering to heresy are assumed to be lost, although Christians are unable to
make definitive judgments on this matter. The opposite of orthodoxy. Adj.:
heretical.

heterodox: Differing from orthodox teaching in some significant way; may
occur in varying degrees.

orthodoxy: The body of essential biblical teachings. Those who embrace them
should be accepted as Christians. The opposite of heresy. Adj.: orthodox.

orthopraxis: Correct practice required of anyone who would be regarded as a
Christian.

schism: A division within a religious group, especially one which divides
Christians from one another. Adj.: schismatic.

sect: A religious group formed as the result of schism, especially one which
is fairly small and of relatively recent origin. Adj.: sectarian.

sound: Agreeing with and faithful to biblical teaching and to orthodoxy
beyond a bare minimum, such that Christians may be encouraged to continue in
this way. Contrasted with aberrational, which refers to orthodox teaching or
practice which is only barely so. Its opposite, unsound, may be used to
express degrees of deficiency in soundness.

suborthodox: Less than orthodox, yet not explicitly contrary to orthodoxy.

unorthodox: Departing from orthodoxy in some measure, though not necessarily
embracing explicit heresy.

THE NECESSITY OF DOCTRINE

The words "doctrine" and "doctrinal" have become pejorative terms for
many -- like "indoctrinate" or "dogma." (For definitions of these and other
words, see the Glossary accompanying this article.) Even many evangelical
Christians, who do affirm certain doctrines, pay little attention to
doctrine beyond a certain minimum.
Of the many objections to Christian doctrine, five may be singled out as
especially influential. Doctrine is often said to be (1) irrelevant, (2)
impractical, (3) divisive, (4) unspiritual, and (5) unknowable. The
importance of doctrine can best be shown by presenting positive answers to
these charges.

The Relevance of Doctrine

In popular thought doctrine has to do with insignificant matters that are
irrelevant to most people. Although doctrine can be trivialized, Christian
doctrine is extremely relevant to all people. Christian doctrine (i.e., the
teachings of Scripture) answers the fundamental questions of life --
questions such as who God is, who we are, and why we are here (Ps. 8:3-8;
Heb. 11:6). How we answer these questions decisively shapes the way we live.
To ignore them is to go through life blithely unaware of what is really
important.

Doctrine is particularly important because a sound proclamation of the
gospel of salvation depends on an accurate understanding of what that gospel
is, what salvation is, and how salvation is received (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim.
4:16). Nothing less than our eternal future depends on it. I do not mean to
imply that we must all become theologians and experts on every fine point of
doctrine to be saved. But the church as a whole must take great care that it
faithfully proclaims the true gospel, and every Christian has a stake in the
matter. I will have more to say on this point a little later.

It is true that some doctrinal issues are less important than others. One of
the most crucial functions of Christian theology, and one of the most
neglected, is to sort out the really important -- the essential -- from the
less important and even the irrelevant (cf. Rom. 14).

Thus, handled properly, doctrine is very relevant to human life, and pursuit
of sound doctrine should therefore be the concern of every person at least
to some extent.

The Practicality of Doctrine

It is common in our day to assert that practice is more important than
theory -- that orthopraxis (doing right) is more important than orthodoxy
(believing right). But this assertion is itself a theory -- something people
think and then say, and then try to put into practice. The fact is that what
we think determines what we do. Thus, doctrine -- as something we think --
affects what we do, and so has practical significance.

It should be recognized, of course, that the practical effects of doctrine
have limits. Doctrine does not always or solely determine our actions, since
people often act on desires or concerns contrary to the doctrines they hold.
For example, someone may believe as doctrine that lying is wrong, but
selfish or prideful thoughts may take precedence over doctrinal convictions
and lead the person to lie. The practicality of doctrine is found not in
determining our practice, but in informing it -- in giving us the knowledge
with which, by God's grace, we can do the right thing.

The point is that we should regard both knowledge and practice as important.
Ultimately, what is important is that a person truly live in obedient
fellowship with God and experience His love; in that sense, of course
practice is more important than doctrine. But God Himself has made it clear
that He uses doctrine to further that practical goal in our lives (1 Tim.
1:3-7; 2 Tim. 3:15-17).

The practical importance of Christian doctrine, then, is great indeed.
Doctrine enables us to develop a realistic view of the world and of
ourselves, without which we are doomed to ineffectual living (Matt.
22:23-33; Rom. 12:3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). Doctrine can protect us from believing
falsehoods which upset people's faith or lead to destructive behavior (1
Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Tim. 2:18; Tit. 1:11). Doctrine also prepares us to minister
to others (Eph. 4:11-12).

The Unity of Doctrine

Perhaps the most common criticism people voice about doctrine is that it
divides people. And indeed, doctrine -- in the history of Christianity as in
other religions -- has often been allowed to divide people in reprehensible
ways. But in a crucial sense doctrine is intended to unite people.

While it is true that doctrine inevitably divides people, this is not
something that can be avoided. People think different things, and they do
different things on the basis of their differing beliefs. What is
undesirable, however, is that doctrine should divide people who ought to be
together, or that divisions should be expressed in wrong ways. That is,
doctrine should not divide faithful Christians from one another, preventing
them from having fellowship together. Nor should doctrine lead people to
hate or mistreat people who hold different doctrines than they do.

The Bible commands Christians to divide themselves from false teachers or
heretics on the basis of doctrinal factors (Rom. 16:17; 2 John 9-11). In
doing so, they are to stand together in unity against heresy (Eph. 4:12-13).
Thus, taking a stand against heresy can promote genuine Christian unity.

As Christians mature together in their understanding of biblical doctrine,
they become more united as their thinking becomes shaped more and more along
the same lines (1 Cor. 1:10). Moreover, a balanced understanding of doctrine
can help Christians divided by doctrinal differences to be reconciled as
they learn which points are minor or unsound and which are not (1 Tim.
6:3-5; Tit. 1:9-14). It turns out that shallow understanding of doctrine
easily promotes disunity among Christians, while deepening understanding of
doctrine tends to foster greater Christian unity.

The Spirituality of Doctrine

Although some people regard the pursuit of doctrinal accuracy as an
unspiritual intellectualism, sound doctrine is actually very important to
sound spirituality. Christian doctrine teaches us about God, His purposes
and will for our lives, what we are like spiritually apart from God's grace,
how God's grace changes us -- in short, everything we need to know in order
to pursue true spirituality (Rom. 6:17-18; 1 Tim. 1:5, 10; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Doctrine provides external, objective controls for our inward, subjective
experiences so that we may discern genuine spirituality from fraudulent,
artificial, or even demonic spirituality (Col. 2:22-23; 1 John 4:1-3).

In pursuing an accurate understanding of Christian doctrine, we are
fulfilling one aspect of God's greatest commandment -- that we love God with
all our minds (Matt. 22:37). This commandment surely implies that we should
take great care and make every effort to conform our beliefs and convictions
to the truth (cf. Rom. 12:2) -- and this means doctrine.

Something should also be said here about the relationship between doctrinal
discernment and spiritual discernment. In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks more
than once about spiritual discernment. The spiritual person discerns all
things, including the things of the Spirit of God, which can only be
discerned spiritually (1 Cor. 2:14-15). The members of the congregation were
to exercise discernment concerning the prophecies that were delivered in the
church (1 Cor. 14:29). And some Christians are specially gifted to discern
evil spirits from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10). On the basis of these and
other passages, some Christians have thought that discernment never has
anything to do with the exercise of the intellect. In their view, one
discerns between good and evil in doctrinal as well as practical matters
simply by listening to the inner voice of the Holy Spirit.

By no means do I wish to disparage the work of the Holy Spirit in giving
Christians discernment. Certainly all Christians must depend on the Holy
Spirit to illuminate their minds that they may clearly see the difference
between good and evil, truth and error. And many Christians who are
ill-equipped to study doctrine in depth are remarkably discerning.

It would be a mistake, however, to pit spiritual discernment against
doctrinal discernment. For one thing, the view that discernment is purely
spiritual is itself a doctrine. Moreover, such a sharp separation of
doctrine and spirituality assumes a dichotomy between the mind and the human
spirit. Since this assumption is also a doctrine, the whole argument is
self-defeating. There are also biblical reasons to reject a dichotomy of
mind and spirit (which I will not elaborate here).

For another thing, the Bible also encourages Christians to use their
knowledge of Christian doctrine in discerning truth from error and good from
evil. The classic example of this is 1 John 4:1-3, where John commands us
not to believe everyone claiming to be speaking by God's Spirit, but instead
to apply a doctrinal test (belief in the full humanity of Jesus Christ) to
those making such claims. Similarly, in 2 John 9 we are told to watch
ourselves and not be deceived by anyone who "does not remain in the doctrine
of Christ." In 1 Corinthians, Paul not only speaks of spiritual discernment
but also presents doctrinal arguments in answer to the heretical belief that
"there is no resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. 15:12-19).

Rather than pitting spiritual and doctrinal discernment against one another,
we should see them as two sides or aspects of the same activity. True
spirituality includes a submission of the mind to the teachings of the
Bible, and sound doctrine includes the belief that our knowledge of the
truth is dependent on the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Thus in true
discernment at its best, the whole Christian draws upon his God-given
knowledge of biblical doctrine in sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.

The Knowability of Doctrine

Some people avoid studying Christian doctrine because they are convinced it
is too difficult or complex to grasp. While small children, the mentally
retarded, and certain others may be admitted to be incapable of
understanding doctrinal matters, the vast majority of adults -- young and
old -- are able to understand much more than they have bothered to learn.
Every individual is responsible to acquire doctrinal knowledge as their
mental faculties, educational level, and opportunities allow.
Scripture commands all Christians to learn doctrine. Generally, removable
spiritual impediments -- not irremovable intellectual ones -- prevent
Christians from advancing in doctrinal understanding (Heb. 5:11-14). Christ
has given teachers to the church to assist believers in learning doctrine
(Eph. 4:11). Obviously such teachers must master doctrine on a level beyond
most other Christians, but they do so for the purpose of imparting as much
truth as possible to the rest of the members of the body of Christ.

Sound doctrine is difficult enough to require honesty and discipline, yet
easy enough that -- with the exceptions mentioned previously -- all who seek
God's grace and commit themselves to the task can learn it (2 Pet. 3:16-18).

Doctrine and Salvation

In discussing the relevance of doctrine, I mentioned that a person's
salvation can depend to some extent on doctrinal understanding. Since this
point is so often contested in our day, it deserves closer attention.

Almost everybody who acknowledges Jesus Christ in some way will agree that
those who completely and explicitly reject Jesus Christ are lost. Many
people find it difficult, however, to believe that some might sincerely
think themselves to be following Jesus Christ and yet, due to heretical
belief, be lost. Jesus Himself promised, "Seek, and you shall find" (Matt.
7:7); should not those who seek for Christ find Him? And do not many sincere
members of groups which evangelicals label heretical truly want to find
Christ? They may read the Bible more studiously than many an evangelical
church member; they may express an ardent desire to know God and obey Him;
they may zealously proclaim the message of Christ as they have been taught
it. Are they not, therefore, seeking Christ, and will they not, then, in
accordance with His promise, find Christ? And if so, how can salvation
depend on doctrinal beliefs?

These questions may be answered by keeping the following biblical principles
in mind.

(1) Not everyone who acknowledges Jesus as Lord will be saved. This follows
directly from Jesus' own words in Matthew 7:21: Simply acknowledging that
Jesus is Lord does not guarantee a person's salvation. The acknowledgment
might be mere lip service, as demonstrated by refusal to obey Him as Lord
(Luke 6:46). Or someone might call Jesus "Lord" and not mean the same thing
as what the Bible means by it. This leads me to a second principle.

(2) Many who claim to acknowledge Jesus actually believe in "another Jesus,"
and are either deceived or deceiving. This follows directly from 2
Corinthians 11:4. Many who speak of faith in "Jesus" have an understanding
of who and what Jesus is that differs so much from reality that in truth
they do not have faith in the real Jesus at all. If a person thought Buddha
was another name for Moses, we would not normally consider him a Buddhist,
no matter how piously and moralistically he lived out his belief in
"Buddha." Similarly, someone who denies the biblical view of Christ should
not be identified as a Christian, no matter how religiously he follows his
belief.

Some people who believe in "another Jesus" are no doubt insincere, and Paul
warns of "deceitful workers who disguise themselves as apostles of Christ"
(2 Cor. 11:13). I like to think the best of people, even people with whom I
have serious disagreements. But I have become acquainted with a few persons
about whom I have had to conclude, reluctantly, that they are simply liars.
These people know on a conscious level that the message they proclaim is
false.

On the other hand, some people, even members of Christian churches, can be
"led astray" (2 Cor. 11:3b) by such deceivers. Thus, it is possible for
sincere people, even people who were part of the fellowship of true
Christians, to be deceived into following "another Jesus." Not that such
people are perfectly innocent -- rather, they are like Eve who, though
deceived by the serpent (2 Cor. 11:3a), was guilty of sin and held
accountable by God (Gen. 3:1-6, 13-16).

(3) Those who are zealous in religious matters are not necessarily saved. In
Romans 10:2 Paul says of his Jewish brethren who rejected Jesus, "They have
a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge." Zeal, of course,
implies sincerity -- that is, the mental state of believing that what one is
promoting is based on truth. The Jews who rejected Jesus were for the most
part zealous, and therefore sincere in this sense -- but they were still
lost (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1). Their zeal was, in particular, for a right standing
with God -- but they sought it on the basis of their own works, as if
salvation was by works, rather than receiving the righteousness which was
available in Christ through faith (Rom. 9:30--10:4).

Matthew 23:15 addresses zeal of another kind -- zeal in seeking converts.
The Pharisees were extremely zealous in missionary work, but all they
succeeded in doing was leading more people into their error. Zeal in
witnessing or evangelizing does not indicate that a religious group is God's
people.

(4) No human being truly seeks for God unless God's Spirit draws that
person; therefore, those that appear to seek for God but do not come in
God's way are not seeking for God at all. In Romans 3:11 Paul quotes Psalm
14:2 to the effect that "there is none who seeks for God." Sin has so
perverted the desires of all human beings that none of us, by our own
natural wishes, is looking for God. This is because "the mind set on the
flesh is hostile toward God" (Rom. 8:7). Of course, some people do seek for
God, otherwise God would not call upon us to seek Him (Isa. 55:6, etc.). But
when people seek God, it is only because God has first "sought" them and
drawn them toward Him by His grace (Luke 19:10; John 6:44; 15:16).

When people therefore appear to be "seeking God" -- when they study the
Bible (2 Pet. 3:16), attend meetings, pray, change their lifestyles, attempt
to obey the commandments, even speak of their love for God and Christ -- yet
persist in worshipping a false God, or honoring a false Christ, or following
a false gospel (Gal. 1:7-9; 2 Cor. 11:4), we must conclude that they were
not really seeking God. Rather, they may have been seeking spiritual power,
or security, or peace of mind, or warm relationships, or knowledge, or
excitement, or anything other than simply God. And in saying this, I am not
claiming that all genuine Christians on the other hand have sought purely
and simply after God. No, our testimony as Christians must be that we were
also following our own divergent path when God sought us, stopped us in our
way, and led us up a new and narrow path leading to salvation in Jesus
Christ (Matt. 7:13).

(5) Anyone who truly desires to know the truth about God and His way of
salvation above all else can and will be saved. This is the other side of
the coin from the previous point. Jesus promised that "the one who comes to
Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37). However, we must come to the
true Jesus on His terms. Judas came to the true Jesus, at least outwardly
(actually, Judas did not know who Jesus really was), but he did not come on
Jesus' terms and was consequently lost (John 17:12). The cost of abandoning
heresy is usually great -- the loss of friends, the embarrassment of
admitting error, the threat of the heretical teachers that all who leave
their teaching will be lost. But salvation is available for anyone who by
God's grace puts truth (and the One who is truth) above these things.

DEFINING HERESY AND ORTHODOXY

So far I have argued that we ought to distinguish between truth and error in
doctrine. Now I wish to address the question of orthodoxy and heresy more
directly. What is orthodox doctrine, what is heretical doctrine, and what's
the difference?

Inadequate Approaches

It is tempting to say that whatever doctrine is biblical is orthodox and
whatever doctrine is not biblical is not orthodox. But this is too
simplistic. For example, assuming that only one of the several views (there
are at least four) on the Rapture is biblical, it does not follow that the
views that are not biblical are therefore heretical. There are some
doctrines which, while not in agreement with the Bible, are not so wide of
the mark that they must be regarded as heretical.

Another approach that has been taken is to measure doctrines by the
doctrinal confessions of some particular denomination. This is fine so long
as what is being determined is not orthodoxy but confessional fidelity. That
is, if someone wishes to be an ordained minister of a particular
denomination, that denomination is within its rights to ask that such a
person agree with its doctrines. If someone does not (e.g., if someone
disagrees with the denomination's position on speaking in tongues or
predestination), then that person should not expect to be ordained in such a
denomination. Given the present diversity of denominations, this should be
expected.

On the other hand, it is lamentable that the church has allowed itself to be
divided over nonessential issues. Thus, adherence to a denomination's
particular distinctives should not necessarily be made the test of Christian
orthodoxy. Of course, some of the doctrinal stands taken by a denomination
may be basic to orthodoxy (e.g., a confession of the deity of Jesus Christ).
In such cases, the denomination's confession and orthodoxy coincide.

What, then, should be the standard of orthodoxy? And how should it be
determined? Perhaps most troublesome: Who should determine the standard?

Certainly I do not claim to have any particular authority to determine by
what standard orthodoxy shall be judged. I claim no special anointing beyond
that which all Christians have (1 John 2:20, 27). I make no claims to
apostolic or prophetic authority. I am not even an ordained minister. Who,
then, am I to judge who is and is not orthodox? Who am I to call anyone a
heretic?

My answer to these questions is twofold. First, I am a Christian, and as
such have a responsibility to avoid heresy. I can hardly do so if I do not
have some idea as to what heresy is. Second, I am a teacher, called by God
to the ministry of teaching my fellow Christians sound doctrine. That gives
me no special authority or mantle of divine sanction, and I would not want
anyone to assume that whatever I say is true. But it does mean that God has
given me a special responsibility, and if I am faithful He will use me to
guide other believers into a more complete and accurate understanding of His
truth. If I am truly faithful, those who are open to God's truth will know
that what I say is true -- not because I say it, but simply because I have
led them to see what has always been in God's Word, the Bible.

Toward Definitions

What, then, is orthodoxy, and what is heresy? First of all, I wish to point
out that the term "orthodoxy" is not in the Bible. That does not mean that
the concept itself is unbiblical, but that we cannot read off its meaning
from biblical texts.

The words "heresy" and "heretic" are in the Bible, and are used in somewhat
varying senses. The Jews called Christianity a "heresy" (Acts 24:14),
probably meaning they considered it a sect under God's condemnation. But
Paul referred to the various factions among the Corinthian Christians as
"heresies," that is, "divisions" (1 Cor. 11:19). Here he seems to regard
some of these divisions as distinguishing true believers from false
believers, but other divisions as simply unfortunate expressions of sinful
disunity among Christians, without suggesting that all who belonged to these
different factions were lost. Elsewhere, though, Paul referred to "heresies"
or divisions as works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20) and said that a "heretic" --
a man causing divisions in the church -- is perverted and self-condemned
(Tit. 3:10-11). Finally, Peter speaks of destructive "heresies" in the sense
of doctrines which deny Christ the Lord (2 Pet. 2:1).

From this survey it is evident that a "heresy" in biblical terminology could
be merely an unfortunate division among Christians, but in a stricter sense
is a divisive teaching or practice destructive of genuine faith and
deserving of condemnation. The looser sense corresponds roughly to our
modern denominations, while the stricter sense applies most clearly to
groups which reject basic Christian doctrines and set themselves apart from
the historic church in its many forms. But a "heresy" in the latter sense
can have its start, at least, within the church. Whenever heresies in this
strict sense arise, Christians are called to separate themselves from those
who persist in holding them.

We may therefore define "heresy" in the strict sense as a teaching or
practice which compels true Christians to divide themselves from those who
hold it. Note the difference here: a "faction" or heresy in the looser sense
is an unfortunate division separating Christians from one another, and
Christians are called to do whatever they can to overcome these divisions (1
Cor. 1:10). But a heresy in the stricter sense is a division separating
Christians from non-Christians (or, at best, from Christians who are
persisting in grave error), and Christians are called to draw the line and
refuse to have spiritual fellowship with those who cross over it. This is
not to say that Christians should not show genuine love, compassion, and
personal respect for heretics; too often in church history "heretic" has
been a hate-word.

How, then, should we define "orthodox"? We might define it as whatever
teachings and practices are sufficiently faithful to Christian principles
that Christians should accept as fellow-Christians those who adhere to them.
To put it simply, whatever religious teachings and practices are not
heretical are orthodox, and vice versa.
Notice that we have not said that all members of churches which teach heresy
are lost. This is no more true than saying that all who are members of
churches which teach orthodoxy are saved. In saying that people are
heretics, or that they are following heresy, we are not pronouncing judgment
on their eternal souls. We are saying that if they follow those heresies
consistently, they will certainly be lost. Conversely, in saying that
someone is orthodox we are not saying that they are necessarily true
Christians with the assurance of eternal life. We are saying that if they
follow orthodox doctrine as the basis of their life (and thus trust in
Christ alone for right standing before God) they will be saved.

Aberrational Christianity

It might seem that doctrinal discernment should be a fairly cut-and-dried
procedure of determining whether a doctrine is orthodox or heretical. After
all, we have defined orthodoxy and heresy in such a way that they cover all
possibilities. Either a doctrine is such that those who hold it should be
accepted as Christians (in which case it is orthodox), or it is not (in
which case it is heretical). This might seem to imply a black-or-white
approach in which all doctrine is either completely orthodox or completely
heretical.

Although doctrinal discernment would be a lot neater and simpler if this
were the case, unfortunately things are more complicated -- in at least two
distinct ways. First, a single doctrine is never held in isolation from
other doctrines, but rather is always part of a system or network of beliefs
held by a person or group. And sometimes that system of beliefs includes
many doctrines which are orthodox as well as some which are heretical. For
example, a religious group might hold that the Bible is the Word of God,
that there is only one God, that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from
the dead, and yet deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Such a group's belief
system is heretical, even though it contains many true beliefs. Moreover, a
group's heretical beliefs generally lead them to misunderstand or misapply
even those true beliefs they do confess, since the beliefs tend to be
interdependent and thus mutually affect one another. Thus, one of the tasks
of doctrinal discernment is to sort out which beliefs in a heretical system
are actually heretical, which are not, and how the nonheretical beliefs are
misapplied because of the heretical system in which they are held.

The second sort of complication to be noticed is that people often hold
conflicting beliefs. Because people are often inconsistent, in some cases
they may hold to orthodox beliefs but also hold to beliefs that undermine or
contradict their orthodox beliefs. The difficulty presented in such cases is
to sort out whether the belief system is basically orthodox or not.

For example, many professing Christian groups today confess belief in one
God, but also speak of human beings (usually Christians in particular) as
being in some sense "gods." This verbal contradiction may or may not betray
a real contradiction in the substance of their beliefs. Making matters even
more difficult is the fact that these different groups mean vastly different
things by calling believers "gods." In some cases it is evident that they
really do not believe in one God at all. In other cases it is clear that
they are using the word "gods" of believers in a figurative sense such that
their confession of one God is not contradicted at all. In still other cases
a real tension exists, and it is difficult to avoid concluding that the
group in question holds conflicting views.

In order to accommodate this phenomenon, it is helpful to speak of religious
doctrines which undermine or are in tension with a group's orthodox beliefs
as aberrational. Holding such aberrational views is a serious problem, and
those who do so must be considered as being in serious sin and should be
treated accordingly. Specifically, those advocating such errors should not
be allowed to teach or minister in the church, and those refusing to keep
such aberrant views to themselves should be excommunicated.

The charge that a person or group's beliefs are aberrational is a serious
one that cannot be made easily. It is arguable that at one level any
incorrect belief is at tension with or undermines orthodox beliefs. By
aberrational, however, I am referring only to false beliefs which do serious
damage to the integrity of an orthodox confession of faith.

The sum of the matter is that doctrinal discernment is a difficult task --
one which requires sensitivity, a sense of proportion and balance, and a
deep understanding of what is essential and what is not. New heresies and
aberrations are constantly arising, as well as new insights into biblical
truth, and discernment is needed to tell the difference. Thus, the task of
doctrinal discernment is an ongoing necessity in the Christian church.

Having shown that doctrinal discernment is necessary, I have yet to say very
much at all about how it is to be done. That will be the focus of Part Two
of this article.

Part Two: Guidelines for Doctrinal Discernment

How do we discern truth from error, sound doctrine from unsound doctrine,
orthodoxy from heresy? How do we discern when a doctrine is fully heretical
and when it is only aberrational?

In Part One of this two-part article I presented a case for doctrinal
discernment as a necessary ongoing task of the church. In this concluding
part I will suggest some guidelines for carrying out this task in a way that
is faithful to Scripture.

PRINCIPLES FOR IDENTIFYING HERESY

Discerning orthodoxy from heresy should be done on the basis of sound
principles, each of which in turn must be based on the teaching of God's
Word. I begin, then, by discussing four principles which the church ought to
utilize as tools to identify and expose heresy. Although they are subject to
misunderstanding and abuse, all four -- properly interpreted -- are valid
and should be utilized together in doctrinal discernment.

(1) The protestant principle. Here I am not referring to an exclusively
Protestant position, but rather to a principle that will be especially
agreeable to Protestants (particularly evangelicals). According to this
principle, the Bible alone is the written Word of God, and as such is the
infallible, definitive standard in matters of controversy in the church.
This principle follows from the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, who taught
that while human tradition and religious leaders are fallible, Scripture is
the Word of God and never errs (Matt. 5:17-20; 15:3-9; 22:29; John 10:35).
Since to be a Christian means, minimally, to be a follower of Jesus Christ,
no person or group can claim to be truly Christian that does not at least
acknowledge this special authority of the Bible.

I said that this teaching is not held exclusively by Protestants, though it
is especially agreeable to them. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy (the other two main branches of Christianity) teach that the
church's traditions are infallible and authoritative, a teaching with which
Protestants cannot agree. Thus, these branches of Christianity do not adhere
fully to the protestant principle as defined here. On the other hand,
Catholicism and Orthodoxy do teach that the Bible is the norma normans --
that is, the norm by which all other norms are to be judged. Thus, at least
in some sense, the view of all major Christian traditions is that Scripture
has the final word. But evangelical Protestants have upheld this principle
more consistently than Christians in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions.
On the other hand, liberalism -- which began in mainline Protestantism and
has virtually engulfed it, and which has now made significant inroads in
Roman Catholicism -- completely denies the protestant principle. Liberalism
presumes to judge the teachings of the Bible according to the canon of human
reason.

Accordingly, it should be rejected as apostate by true believers of all
major Christian traditions.

The protestant principle has often been summarized by the Protestant
Reformation motto sola scriptura ("only Scripture"). Taken in its true
sense, this means that only Scripture is an unerring verbal expression of
the mind of God for the church prior to Christ's return. But this should not
be interpreted to mean that truth can be found only in Scripture or that all
traditions are based on falsehood. Nor should it be interpreted to forbid
using words not found in the Bible to express biblical doctrine. For
example, the idea that the Bible is a "canon," or rule of faith, is
biblical -- even though the word "canon" is not found in the Bible. The idea
that God is "self-existent," meaning that His existence depends on nothing
other than Himself, is biblical -- even though the word "self-existent" is
not in the Bible. This is an important qualification to the protestant
principle, violated by many heretical sects.

(2) The evangelical principle. In Europe, "evangelical" is virtually
synonymous with "Lutheran," and the principle I enunciate here will be
especially agreeable to that tradition, though certainly transcending it.
According to this principle, whatever is contrary to the gospel of Jesus
Christ is to be rejected as heresy This principle is based directly on such
passages as Galatians 1:6-9 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Here, "the gospel"
refers not to the Bible in its entirety, but to its central message of
reconciliation of human beings to God through the redemptive work of Christ.

This principle implies that not every misinterpretation of or departure from
the Bible is equally damaging to authentic Christian faith. Misunderstanding
the relationship between the Millennium and the Second Coming, for example,
is not as serious an error as misunderstanding the relationship between
faith and works. Denying that Jonah escaped alive after being inside a large
fish for three days is not as bad an error as denying that Jesus rose from
the grave after being dead for three days. Whether the errors are clear-cut
or debatable from our perspective, it remains true that some errors are
worse than others.

On the other hand, this principle can be misapplied by treating the gospel
as a "canon within the canon" such that some parts of the Bible become more
authoritative than others. While we may draw more directly on the Gospel of
John or the Epistle to the Romans in our presentation of the gospel, our
understanding of the gospel should be shaped by the entire Bible. Some
extreme or aberrant groups have lost sight of this and have argued that only
one part of the Bible -- say, the Book of Acts -- presents the gospel of
salvation. Besides being contrary to the facts (e.g., Paul rehearses the
basics of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8), such an argument undermines
the unity of Scripture.

Moreover, even seemingly less important errors can be symptomatic of
outright heretical beliefs. For example, while some variant views on the
Millennium are tolerable among Christians, other views should be regarded as
heretical, such as the view that the Millennium will be a period in which
unbelievers will be raised and given a second chance to save themselves by
doing good works. Clearly this view is heretical because of its bearing on
the doctrine of salvation. The belief that Jonah was not swallowed by a fish
and then set free three days later might be symptomatic of a prejudice
against all miracles. On the other hand, some Christians who freely confess
that God could have done such a miracle hold that the Book of Jonah is a
parable and was simply not intended as history. The latter view may be
wrong, but it is not anti-Christian in the way the former view clearly is.

Finally, it should be noted that in mainline denominations heavily
influenced by liberalism, the "gospel" has typically been reinterpreted and
watered down to the point of no longer being the biblical gospel at all. The
evangelical principle must always be tied to the protestant principle and
not pitted against it, as is the case in liberal Protestantism.

(3) The orthodox principle. I call this principle the "orthodox" principle
because it will be especially agreeable to Christians in the Orthodox
(Eastern) tradition. According to this principle, the creeds of the
undivided church should be regarded as reliable expressions of the essential
truths on which they speak. This principle follows from the biblical
teaching that the Christian faith was delivered once for all to the saints
(Jude 3) and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the church
(Matt. 16:18). These texts (see also Matt. 28:20; John 14:16; Eph. 4:11-16)
make it inconceivable that the whole church could establish as normative
what is in fact aberrant or heretical.

Thus, the creeds formulated by the early church before it split into Eastern
Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism, and accepted by all three
branches of Christianity, should be regarded as reliable standards by which
heresies may be exposed. Such creeds as the Nicene and Chalcedonian
Creeds -- which speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God (the
Trinity), and of Jesus Christ as uniquely God and man (the Incarnation) --
expressed the faith of all Christians when they were written, and have
unified all Christians against heresy for centuries. They are therefore
deserving of respect and should be honored as tools for identifying and
exposing heresy.

Note that I am not saying that Christians cannot choose to disagree with
some of the precise wording of these creeds. After all, they are not
infallible, inspired documents. Nor am I saying that those churches which
choose not to use the creeds, or which have little or no regard for creeds
as such, are heretical. Rather, I am simply saying that a doctrine or belief
should be regarded as heretical if it departs from the essential,
substantial teachings of these creeds. I am therefore adopting a more
flexible form of this principle than is actually held by Eastern Orthodox
Christians themselves. I am also pleading with my anticreedal brothers and
sisters in Christ to rethink their rejection of these fine expressions of
orthodoxy.

(4) The catholic principle. By "catholic" I do not mean specifically Roman
Catholic, but simply "universal" (which is what the Greek word katholikos
means). The notion of "catholicity" has been much abused, but it has also
been ignored; both are unfortunate. The catholic principle is that any
doctrine that contradicts what the church as a whole (in all times and
places) has regarded as essential to the faith should be regarded as
heretical. This principle also follows from the biblical teaching mentioned
above that God will keep the whole church from heresy.

It should be noted that this principle is a generalization, not an
absolutely definitive test. I say this because by the "whole" church I do
not mean every last individual in the church, as if the dissent of one or a
few professing Christians could negate a doctrine's status as "catholic."
The principle rather seeks to uphold what the vast majority of those who
have participated in the church's worship, in all its various branches and
denominations, and who have upheld the faith as defined by the orthodox
principle, have regarded as essential or basic to their faith.

Moreover, the catholic principle -- properly understood -- presupposes the
protestant principle. That is, when we speak of "the church" in all times
and places, we are speaking of that community of faith which regards the
Bible as the supreme norm of its faith. We are thus excluding from the
outset those segments of Christendom that have abandoned faith in the Bible
as the Word of God. It has only been in the last two centuries that large
segments of Christendom within both Protestantism and Catholicism have
denied absolute biblical authority. And in the vast majority of such cases,
the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement have been
rejected as well. These segments of Christendom must be regarded as
apostate, having fallen away from the faith.

These considerations are helpful in making more precise the notion of
appealing to the position of the "historic Christian church" as a litmus
test of orthodoxy. What we ought to mean by this expression is the
Bible-believing community of faith as it has existed continuously throughout
the centuries. Those segments of Christendom which have introduced new
doctrinal revelations, or which have rejected biblical authority, are by
this definition not part of the historic Christian church.

Finally, note that not everything that has been believed by most Christians
falls under the catholic principle, but only those things that the church
has held to be essential. For the first fifteen centuries of church history,
virtually all Christians held that the earth was at the physical center of
the universe. But by no means does this make that erroneous belief part of
the "catholic" or universal Christian faith. Here the "evangelical
principle" is a valuable corrective to a possible misapplication of the
catholic principle.

KINDS OF HERETICAL DOCTRINE

Taking the protestant principle to heart, we next turn to the Bible -- what
kinds of heretical doctrine does it discuss and forewarn us about? The Bible
makes frequent reference to false teachings and it is often within the
context of refuting heresy that its positive doctrinal material is cast.

The Old Testament contains solemn warnings against anyone who prophesies or
proclaims teachings in the name of any god but the LORD, Jehovah (Deut.
13:1-5; 18:20-22). This is the assumed context in which the New Testament
teaching about heresies is framed.

In the New Testament, there are warnings about false prophets (Matt. 24:11,
24; 2 Pet. 2:1) -- that is, those who make predictions in the name of God
and whose predictions turn out to be false (cf. Deut. 18:22). There is also
a warning about false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13). There are warnings about
those claiming to be the Christ, or claiming that Christ has come, or that
the Day of the Lord has come, or that the resurrection has occurred - - when
all these events will be so plain and conspicuous that no one will miss them
(Matt. 24:5, 23-27; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:16-18).

There are also warnings about those who proclaim another Jesus or a
different gospel, or who introduce a spirit other than God's Spirit (1 Cor.
15:3-5; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-9). The teaching that circumcision and keeping
the Law are necessary for salvation is condemned (Gal. 5:2-4; Phil. 3:2). On
the other side, teaching that liberty in Christ gives us excuse for
licentiousness is also condemned (Jude 4).

The denial of Jesus Christ's coming in the flesh is regarded as from the
spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:1-6). There are warnings about people who
cause dissensions by teaching doctrine directly opposed to what Christians
already know to be true (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10-11). There are warnings about
those who claim to love God but do not love God's people (1 John 4:20; 5:1),
and who deliberately break away from the church on the basis of perverted
doctrine (1 John 2:19). Finally, there are warnings against adding to or
taking away from the words of prophetic Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19) or
twisting the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).

Looking over these warnings from Scripture, we may classify heresies into
six major categories: (1) Heresies about revelation -- teachings that
distort, deny, or add to Scripture in a way that leads people to
destruction; false claims to apostolic or prophetic authority. (2) Heresies
about God -- teachings that promote false gods or idolatrous distortions of
the true God. (3) Heresies about Christ -- denials of His unique Lordship,
His genuine humanity, His true identity. (4) Heresies about salvation --
teaching legalism or licentiousness; denying the gospel of Christ's death
and resurrection; and so forth. (5) Heresies about the church -- deliberate
attempts to lead people away from the fellowship of true Christians; utter
rejection of the church. (6) Heresies about the future -- false predictions
for which divine authority is claimed; claims that Christ's return has taken
place; and the like.

Note that errors in any one of these six categories tend to introduce errors
into the other five. Take, for instance, the heretical view held by many
groups that the church became totally apostate in the early centuries and
thus had to be "restored" in the last days. This doctrine implies (1) that
Scripture is not a sufficient revelation, but needs supplementing or
"explaining" by some authoritative teacher or publication. It also almost
always serves as a basis for rejecting the early church's views of (2) God
and (3) Christ. Since the Reformation is rejected as falling short of the
needed restoration, (4) the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is
likewise rejected. And the doctrine of a restoration comes to dominate the
group's views of (6) the future, as it requires them to view many or most
biblical prophecies about the future as finding fulfillment in their own
group.

We find then that an error in any area of doctrine can affect every other
area. Therefore, although heresies tend to fall directly into one or more of
these six major categories, heresies can in fact occur on virtually any
doctrinal subject. For example, someone who teaches that angels should be
worshipped is teaching a heretical view (Col. 2:18), even though the subject
matter is angels. This is because worship of any creature completely cuts
the heart out of any confession of God as the one God.

Nor should it be thought that the New Testament gives us a complete
catalogue of all possible heresies. In our day there are literally thousands
of clever distortions of Christian theology that deserve the label heresy,
and they can be seen as such apart from being explicitly anticipated and
identified as heretical in the Bible. The Bible teaches us what is
absolutely essential, enunciates principles as to what is basic to sound
Christian faith and what is nonessential, gives us a wide variety of
examples of heresies, and expects us to exercise discernment in evaluating
new and controversial teachings when they surface.

Furthermore, it must be realized that as the church progresses through
history and deepens its understanding of Scripture, heresies in general are
becoming more subtle, more deceiving, more easily mistaken for authentic
Christianity.

For example, modern-day heretics who reject the Old Testament are rarely as
frank about it as the second-century heretic Marcion, who simply denied that
the Old Testament was in any sense Scripture (he also discarded much of the
New Testament). Instead, they adopt a method of interpretation which, while
formally admitting that the Bible is God's Word, in effect makes the Old
Testament irrelevant to the Christian, which is contrary to the clear
teaching of the New Testament (Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:16).

In short, heresy is any doctrine which the Bible explicitly labels as
destructive, damning error; or a doctrine which the Bible instructs is not
to be tolerated in the church; or any doctrine which, even if not mentioned
in the Bible, utterly contradicts those truths which the Bible indicates are
essential for sound Christian faith.
Aberrational views can also be classified according to the above six
categories. In each case, the aberrant doctrine seriously compromises the
Bible's essential teaching in one or more of those six areas, although not
outright denying it. For example, the practice of speculating on the precise
date of the return of Christ can often be an aberration that stops short of
heresy. The practice is certainly unbiblical, and in the context of
heretical systems of doctrine such date-setting can itself be regarded as
heretical. But in some cases, teachers have argued more modestly that Christ
might return on a certain date, admitting the very real possibility of
error, and urging only intensified obedience to God's Word. Even this sort
of teaching should be regarded as more or less aberrant, since it
compromises the biblical warnings against making predictions of this sort;
but it is not of itself heretical.

APPLYING THE STANDARDS

How shall the identification of heresy be carried out in practice? And who
shall be involved in the process of identifying and responding to heresy?
Here I wish simply to give some brief suggestions as guidelines that seem to
me to be in keeping with the teaching of Scripture.

Who Should Judge?

I have already argued in Part One that the Christian church as a whole is
responsible for exercising discernment or judgment concerning heretical
teachings, and that such judgment should not be left solely in the hands of
trusted religious leaders, no matter who they are. Here I wish to sharpen
this point somewhat.

Ultimately, only God can judge human hearts, since only He knows infallibly
what people are thinking and feeling. We do not even know our own hearts
infallibly (Jer. 17:9-10). Therefore, when we speak about judging heresy, we
are not claiming to know the hearts of those espousing the heresy. We are
not setting ourselves up as arbiters of their eternal future, deciding who
will be saved and who will not.

What the church is called to judge is whether certain teachings should be
allowed to be propagated in its midst, whether certain practices should be
condoned, and whether certain individuals espousing heretical teachings or
immoral practices should be allowed to remain in the community of faith.
This kind of judgment is to be exercised by the whole church, although some
persons in the church will play a more direct role in the process than
others.

There are commands in the New Testament directing all Christians to exercise
discernment (1 Cor. 5:9-13; 14:29; 1 John 4:1). Yet, some Christians are
more gifted or skilled in such discernment than others. God gives some
Christians special gifts of discernment concerning spirits (1 Cor. 12:10).
God gives some Christians gifts enabling them to be teachers (Rom. 12:6-7; 1
Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; James 3:1). God has also called some Christians to
be in positions of leadership in the church -- such as pastors, elders,
overseers, deacons -- and they will clearly have a more direct role in
carrying out the judgment of the church concerning heresy (Acts 20:28; Phil.
1:1; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). For
this reason, such Christian leaders should inform themselves and consult
with gifted Christian teachers to make sure that mature discernment is
exercised in their congregations. And the leaders and teachers should work
together to instruct the church body as a whole in sound doctrine and in the
practice of discernment, so that the whole body will indeed be of one mind
in its discernment.

How Should We Judge?

At last we come to the "nitty-gritty" of discernment. Just what should we do
in order to exercise sound doctrinal discernment? How should we go about
becoming more mature and skilled in discernment? The following guidelines
are not exhaustive, but they are especially critical.

(1) Learn to exercise discernment while growing as a Christian in faith,
love, and holiness. I would like to assume this is obvious to everyone, but
it bears emphasizing and even placing first on the list. The Christian life
is not an intellectual game in which the object is to prove that you are
right and to ferret out everyone who is wrong. Discerning orthodox from
heretical teaching is only one aspect of the Christian life, though it is an
important one. Moreover, doctrinal discernment itself should involve prayer,
fellowship with other Christians, ministry to other Christians and to the
lost, as well as doctrinal study. May I also say that I am preaching to
myself here more than to anyone else! As one whose lifetime ministry and
career is concentrated in the practice and communication of doctrinal
discernment, I (and my colleagues in discernment ministry, as well) am more
apt to forget this than other Christians.

On the other hand, let me also emphasize the word "growing" in the above
statement. There is not some minimum standard of spiritual achievement that
must be reached before one may begin exercising discernment. Rather, the
exercise of discernment is one function in the Christian life in which all
believers should be growing throughout their Christian experience.

(2) Develop a thorough and sound grasp of Scripture. Other things being
equal, the better one understands the Bible, the better one will be able to
discern truth from error. Not every Christian can be a Bible scholar, but
virtually every Christian can study the Bible in depth and gain a profound
understanding of its teachings.
There are various ways in which one can study the Bible, and all of them are
important. Read the Bible itself -- read whole books of the Bible, and read
the whole Bible (though not necessarily in any particular order). Commit
portions of Scripture to memory. Study the Bible topically, searching
through Scripture and reading what it says on particular subjects (see Acts
17:11). Use study aids, theological textbooks, and the like (though
discernment will be needed in choosing and using such works). Study the
Bible by yourself and in groups. Find competent teachers and learn as much
as you can from them. The point is to use every resource possible to
increase your understanding of Scripture.

(3) Study Christian doctrine from a variety of traditions within orthodox
Christianity. As you become fairly clear on the essentials of the faith, you
should seek to become familiar with some of the different perspectives on
Christian doctrine within the household of faith. You will want to acquaint
yourself with different views held by Christians on such controversial
doctrinal matters as baptism, the Millennium, spiritual gifts,
predestination, and the like. Understanding the different perspectives held
by orthodox Christians on these doctrinal matters will enable you to
appreciate better the difference between essentials and nonessentials of the
faith, as well as to gain a more mature and biblical position on them.

(4) Learn as much relevant information as possible about a questionable
teaching or religious group before making any judgment. Scripture says, "He
who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him" (Prov.
18:13). It is sin for Christians to judge someone's beliefs as heretical on
the basis of less than adequate information.

There are a variety of strategies you can use to gain information about a
group. You can inquire about religious affiliations -- the denomination or
religion of a teacher or group -- though in some cases certain organizations
or persons may deny their controversial religious affiliations. You can ask
for information about their history or leaders, as sometimes this is
illuminating. You can consult standard reference works, dictionaries, or
encyclopedias that list religious groups and organizations and describe
their beliefs. In most cases, except with very new or small groups or
teachings, these strategies will give you adequate information.

(5) Base your understanding of a questionable doctrine on what those who
espouse it say about it themselves. This follows directly from the above
principle and from the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). Just as we would not want
someone to label us heretics or accuse us of other evils (Matt. 5:11) on the
basis of what others say about us, so we should not criticize others' views
without being sure that we have heard them firsthand. This does not mean
that every Christian must personally read the primary literature of a
heretical group before concluding that it is indeed heretical. Rather, a
Christian critique of a supposedly heretical group should be considered less
than adequate to the extent that the accusations made are not backed up with
accurate quotations from the authoritative leaders of the group.
In questionable cases where no adequate Christian analysis or evaluation has
yet been done, it is very important to gain primary source information about
the group's doctrines. One approach that is often helpful is to ask for a
doctrinal statement. However, keep in mind the following two observations:
(1) Some groups that have no doctrinal statement are nevertheless orthodox.
(2) Doctrinal statements of heretical groups are often kept as
orthodox-sounding as possible to avoid easy criticism. Other publications
may be more revealing of the group's true colors.

(6) Do not assume that the use of orthodox language guarantees orthodox
beliefs. As I have just suggested, unorthodox and aberrant groups are often
not straightforward and honest about the true nature of their beliefs. They
will frequently use biblical language and sound very evangelical in order to
avoid criticism. This is exactly what the New Testament warns us about
(e.g., 2 Cor. 11:4).

In the case of groups that are dishonest about their true beliefs, gather as
much information about their beliefs as possible and compare what they say
to the public with what they say to one another. This may involve attending
their meetings and asking questions without seeming critical (see Matt.
10:16) or obtaining in-house literature normally available only to members.
Generally, such investigations should be carried out by those with some
experience and training in doctrinal discernment, such as those involved in
discernment ministries. In some cases, ex-members may be the best source of
such information and materials.

(7) Treat the information supplied by ex-members with respect but due
caution as well. Every heretical group eventually begins generating
ex-members in greater or lesser quantities, and these persons can be
invaluable resources. Often their most important contribution is their
access to publications and recordings unavailable to the general public.
Their personal testimonies can also be very informative and helpful.

One of the marks of a heretical or aberrant group is that its ex-members are
all dismissed as disgruntled or envious or immoral persons with an axe to
grind. Of course, this may be true of some ex-members. Yet, if a religious
group loses a large number of people, and these ex-members consistently tell
the same story, their testimony should be given due credence. If an
ex-member can back up his (or her) story with documentation or corroborative
testimony from other ex-members, that will serve to reinforce his testimony.

Occasionally, certain individuals will present themselves as ex-members of a
group and tell sensational stories about their involvement. Great caution
must be exercised in such cases, as increasingly there are instances of
persons doing this who either were never part of the group in question, or
were never as deeply involved as they claim. Whether such individuals
perpetuate such deceptions for financial gain, media attention, personal
antagonism toward the group, or for more subtle reasons, may not always be
clear. In any case it is important that sensationalistic accusations against
a group not be accepted on the basis of the testimony of one person or
couple apart from corroborative evidence.

(8) In uncertain or borderline cases, give the benefit of the doubt to the
person or group in question. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty"
applies here. Some Christians involved in discernment ministries raise "red
flags" or, to change the metaphor, "cry wolf" whenever there is the
slightest hint of possible heresy. Such a practice brings reproach upon
discernment ministries and divides Christians.

(9) Begin with foundational matters. In inquiring into the orthodoxy of a
religious group, much time and energy can be saved and mistakes prevented by
asking foundational questions about the group's attitude toward the Bible
and religious authority. Do they regard the Bible as the absolutely
infallible, unerring Word of God? Do they regard the Bible as the final
authority in religious matters, or do they look to something else (their
leaders, a modern prophet, another book, etc.) as an indispensable authority
by which the Bible is interpreted? If their answers to these questions are
satisfactory, then in most cases they will be orthodox; if not, they will
usually be heretical. Keep in mind that some heretical groups profess
complete confidence in the Bible and appear to have no other doctrinal
authorities; thus, this guideline should be treated only as a rule of thumb.

(10) Consult with reputable discernment ministries who honor biblical
principles of discernment. No human being is infallible, nor is any
organization, including Christian discernment ministries. Nevertheless, if
you agree that the principles discussed in this article are biblical, then
you should consult with discernment ministries who seek to base their work
on these principles.

THE CHALLENGE OF DISCERNMENT

In conclusion, I would like to offer a challenge to those who agree that
doctrinal discernment of the kind discussed in these articles is necessary.
Begin to do something to contribute to the ongoing task of discernment.
Encourage your church leaders to preach and teach on doctrinal discernment.
Support one or more biblically based discernment ministries, especially any
that may be in your local area. If you are a parent, teach sound doctrine to
your children. Pray for sound Christian teachers and preachers, and pray
that heresies and aberrant doctrines would lose their appeal. Every
Christian can and should be doing something to contribute to the church's
discernment of sound doctrine.

Bible Bob

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 2:11:13 AM10/14/07

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:15:11 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com>
wrote:

>A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy
>by Robert M. Bowman
>

Carl,

Please put "Repost" in your header subject line when you repost.

If a Christian does not believe in the trinity is he saved? Will God
send him to hell and murder him if he doesn't believe in the Trinity?
What is your answer; your personal beleif. That's a fair question.

Carl, you meet the criteria for being a heretic according to what
Bowman wrote.

This is the third post you omitted the introductory paragraph in.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)

Glenn

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 11:55:19 AM10/14/07

Carl wrote:
>
>
>
<clip repost of someone else's work>

First, "Orthodox" means "as taught by Christ and His Apostles to the
early Church."

a) The false doctrine of a triune god" was NOT taught by Christ.

b) The false doctrine of "the rapture" (pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib)
was NOT taught by Christ.

c) The false doctrine of 'the thousand year reign of Christ on THIS
earth' was NOT taught by Christ.

d) Most doctrines (such as transubstantiation or the elevation of Mary,
etc) taught by the Roman Catholic Church are Heresy. The Pope of the
Roman Church is a Heretic.

e) Preterism is a Heresy.

f) The World Council of Churches, the "One World Church" (which will
command all men to worship the god of Modern Rome) is a Heresy.

Second, "Heresy" DOES mean 'doctrine or dogma' NOT delivered by Jesus,
Paul and/or the Apostles of Christ to the First Century Church.

The doctrines described above are all Heresy.

Third, an "Heretic" is a person, such as the Pope, Ike, Pastor Dave,
pulpitfire, Chuck and Carl, (to those who's names I omit, sorry, it is
just a lack of space and not disrespect) who teaches Heresy and refuses
correction.

Glenn
His witness

www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog

Raymond

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 12:51:26 PM10/14/07

On Oct 14, 2:11 am, Bible Bob <bible...@saintly.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:15:11 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A Biblical Guide to Orthodoxy and Heresy
> >by Robert M. Bowman
>
> Carl,
>
> Please put "Repost" in your header subject line when you repost.
>
> If a Christian does not believe in the trinity is he saved? Will God
> send him to hell and murder him if he doesn't believe in the Trinity?
> What is your answer; your personal beleif. That's a fair question.

That is not a fair question it is a loaded question. Where does the
Bible say one has to believe in anyone but Jesus Christ to be saved"
In fact it say if we walk in the light as Jesus is, He does forgive us
of ALL sin and that would mean a person can be saved, by trusting only
in Jesus. 1 John 1:7
Since there is no such word as Trinity in the whole Bible and only
Jesus is needed to save a person, as salvation is in Him. There is no
need to even say the word Trinity or accept some man made teaching
that was not invented till a few hundred years after the Bible was
written. God does NOT send anyone to HELL the sinner does that all
by themselves. God has made a way to escape Hell not put people into
it. That is why Jesus came and why He gave His life and such because
God so loved the World and all there in. He did not hate the world or
them in it, He Loved them so your question is null and of no purpose
that except to divide and keep the Unity that God wants for His
Church.

>
> Carl, you meet the criteria for being a heretic according to what Bowman wrote.

Who is this Bowman that anyone should care what he has to say?

<A John 3:16 Whosoever>

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 1:00:59 PM10/14/07

On Oct 14, 8:55 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:

> an "Heretic" is a person, such as the Pope, Ike, Pastor Dave,
> pulpitfire, Chuck and Carl,

Dave, Randy, and Carl are *not* heretics - you label them as such
because they've taken you to task in the past. All of them (from what
I've seen here) believe in salvation through Jesus Christ alone and
profess Him as Lord and Savior. According to Jesus Himself, *that* is
enough - why isn't it enough for you?

> who teaches Heresy and refuses
> correction.

Translation of Glenn-speak: "They don't accept my teachings or
correction and won't sit at my feet, therefore, they are heretics".

Glenn

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 1:52:31 PM10/14/07

<A John 3:16 Whosoever> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 8:55 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>> an "Heretic" is a person, such as the Pope, Ike, Pastor Dave,
>> pulpitfire, Chuck and Carl,
>
> Dave, Randy, and Carl are *not* heretics - you label them as such
> because they've taken you to task in the past. All of them (from what
> I've seen here) believe in salvation through Jesus Christ alone and
> profess Him as Lord and Savior. According to Jesus Himself, *that* is
> enough - why isn't it enough for you?

I said they teach heresy and are heretic, I did not say they can not be
saved.

Dave teaches preterism -- so you claim preterism is not a heresy?

Randy (pulpitfire) teaches "pre-trib rapture" -- which has been proved
false by many other than myself... THAT makes pulpitfire a heretick.

Carl is a heretic who teaches the false doctrine created by Constantine
and the pope -- who is a heretic and the father of heresies.

>
>> who teaches Heresy and refuses
>> correction.
>
> Translation of Glenn-speak: "They don't accept my teachings or
> correction and won't sit at my feet, therefore, they are heretics".
>

You clip what I wrote, then translate what I said into something
different from what I wrote?

That kind of lie and false accusation is exactly what Dave, Ike, Carl,
Randy and you do to the Bible.

<A John 3:16 Whosoever>

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 2:06:42 PM10/14/07

On Oct 14, 10:52 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> I said they teach heresy and are heretic, I did not say they can not be
> saved.

So you believe heretics can be saved? Interesting.

> Dave teaches preterism -- so you claim preterism is not a heresy?

In my understanding of Preterism, it still teaches the Jesus is the
Son of God who died for our sins and that salvation is based on one's
acceptance of that sacrifice in view of our sinful nature, and Jesus
as Lord. The rest is just differences in theology not essential to
salvation (although a Preterist would likely differ with that view).

> Randy (pulpitfire) teaches "pre-trib rapture" -- which has been proved
> false by many other than myself... THAT makes pulpitfire a heretick.

Ah, baloney. Rapture doctrine is non-essential to salvation.
Believing it (or not believing it) does not make one a heretic.

> Carl is a heretic who teaches the false doctrine created by Constantine
> and the pope -- who is a heretic and the father of
heresies.

Again, non-essential to salvation. So far, you're 0 for 3, Glenn.

> > Translation of Glenn-speak: "They don't accept my teachings or
> > correction and won't sit at my feet, therefore, they are heretics".

> You clip what I wrote,
> then translate what I said into something
> different from what I wrote?

Yep. It's called free-speech in America, Glenn. (Psst...I've got
news for ya, Glenny - you're not as much of an enigma as you'd like us
all to believe ;-)

> That kind of lie and false accusation is exactly what Dave, Ike, Carl,
> Randy and you do to the Bible.

So you're equating snipping your posts with desecrating the Bible?
LOL! You really are an insane, self-important demigogue, aren't you?

Glenn

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 3:36:28 PM10/14/07

<A John 3:16 Whosoever> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 10:52 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> I said they teach heresy and are heretic, I did not say they can not be
>> saved.
>
> So you believe heretics can be saved? Interesting.

As far as I know, only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable
-- but, then, I'm sure you have some scripture to show otherwise?

Since 'heresy' is forgivable, then even an heretic like Dave, Ike and
pulpitfire -- and yes, you and Carl too -- can be saved.

>
>> Dave teaches preterism -- so you claim preterism is not a heresy?
>
> In my understanding of Preterism, it still teaches the Jesus is the
> Son of God who died for our sins and that salvation is based on one's
> acceptance of that sacrifice in view of our sinful nature, and Jesus
> as Lord. The rest is just differences in theology not essential to
> salvation (although a Preterist would likely differ with that view).

The scriptural definition of "Heresy" has nothing to do with "essential"
and "non-essential doctrine."

A doctrine is either TRUE, or it is False. False doctrine, such as
preterism, 'rapture' and 'millennial reign' are heresy.

>
>> Randy (pulpitfire) teaches "pre-trib rapture" -- which has been proved
>> false by many other than myself... THAT makes pulpitfire a heretick.
>
> Ah, baloney. Rapture doctrine is non-essential to salvation.

Whether it is essential or NOT essential is not the question -- the
question is whether it was taught by Christ to the Apostles. Since it
was not taught by Christ, then it is an heresy.

> Believing it (or not believing it) does not make one a heretic.

Too sad, too bad, you don't pay attention to the scriptural definition
of Heresy and Heretick.

According to Paul, teaching doctrine not delivered by Christ to the
Apostles and from them to the Church is Heresy.

Titus 3:
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

and,

1 Cor 15:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

and,

Tim 1:
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into
Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy
and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was
committed to my trust.

And,

1 Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine
which is according to godliness;

And also Jude wrote
[KJV] Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of
the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and
exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints.

ALL of this teaches that the Gospel and Sound Doctrine is what was
taught by Christ to His apostles, including Paul, which the Apostles
then delivered to the First Century Church, and recorded for us.

Heresy is what came after.

An Heretic is one who teaches some doctrine not delivered by the
Apostles to the Church.

You are a heretick.

>
>> Carl is a heretic who teaches the false doctrine created by Constantine
>> and the pope -- who is a heretic and the father of
> heresies.
>
> Again, non-essential to salvation. So far, you're 0 for 3, Glenn.

Oh? Carl's subject was of Heresy and heretics...
...NOT of essential and none essential doctrine...

>
>>> Translation of Glenn-speak: "They don't accept my teachings or
>>> correction and won't sit at my feet, therefore, they are heretics".
>
>> You clip what I wrote,
>> then translate what I said into something
>> different from what I wrote?
>
> Yep. It's called free-speech in America, Glenn.

Yep, according to you, your 'free speech' means you can lie about what
someone says.

> (Psst...I've got
> news for ya, Glenny - you're not as much of an enigma as you'd like us
> all to believe ;-)
>
>> That kind of lie and false accusation is exactly what Dave, Ike, Carl,
>> Randy and you do to the Bible.
>
> So you're equating snipping your posts with desecrating the Bible?

LOL! Oh? So you can 'translate' one man's words, then lie about what he
said, and THAT is OK?

No, Heretick, when you falsify one's words that makes you a liar and a
false accuser -- whether John, or Jude or Peter wrote them, or not.

> LOL! You really are an insane, self-important demigogue, aren't you?
>

Do you really think that your ridicule and name-calling alters the fact
that I have told the truth and you have demonstrated that you are a liar
and false accuser?

<A John 3:16 Whosoever>

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 8:45:05 PM10/14/07

On Oct 14, 12:36 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:

> As far as I know, only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable

Well, actually, there are several schools of thought on what the
unforgivable sin is actually is. Saying unequivocably that it is
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is one belief, but Scripture isn't
completely clear on whether that is it.

> -- but, then, I'm sure you have some scripture to show otherwise?

Never said or implied I did. I thought it interesting that you, of
all people, would hold hope for the salvation of those you vilify
regularily in Usenet. You seem so angry and hateful, really.

> Since 'heresy' is forgivable, then even an heretic like Dave, Ike and
> pulpitfire -- and yes, you and Carl too -- can be saved.

Now, you yourself have stated above that heresy is not the
unforgivable sin. Believing such, you are then acknowledging that
someone who has committed heresy is not yet dammed. If that is the
case, then someone who is already saved, but teaches a heretical or
false doctrine, would not be condemned, correct? I wasn't aware that
you believed in once-saved-always-saved, Glenn. Glad to hear it.

You see, I know that I was saved on February 13, 1975 - therefore, now
that you have knowledge of my salvation, as a Christian believer, you
should no longer refer to me as unsaved, okey-dokie? I can't of
course, speak for the others, but everything I have seen in their
stated beliefs (save for Ike - the jury's still out on him as far as
I'm concerned) indicate that they know Jesus as Lord and Savior.

> The scriptural definition of "Heresy" has nothing to do with "essential"
> and "non-essential doctrine."

It seemed to me that your belief was that those who preached heresy
were damned no matter what. That's why I spoke of essential and non-
essential doctrine regarding salvation.

> A doctrine is either TRUE, or it is False. False doctrine, such as
> preterism, 'rapture' and 'millennial reign' are heresy.

As far as I'm concerned, rapture and millennial reign theologies are
not necessarily heretical, but questionable doctrine. Preterism is
the only one in mind that borders on possible heresy. But since none
of them are damnable for the elect, I'm not certain why you're getting
your panties in such a bunch. The truth is that as long as something
is not anti-Christ (none of those you mentioned are anti-Christ), I'm
not going to lose sleep over it. That's just my personal belief.

> Whether it is essential or NOT essential is not the question -- the
> question is whether it was taught by Christ to the Apostles. Since it
> was not taught by Christ, then it is an heresy.

I see where you're going with this. Okay, Glenn - the computer you
are using and the technology behind it was not taught by Christ to the
Apostles (actually they were Disciples when they were with Jesus, so
you've got a little bit of a misnomer going for you, but whatever...),
therefore it is heresy - according to your definition of heresy.
Right?

> Too sad, too bad, you don't pay attention to the scriptural definition
> of Heresy and Heretick.

Why do you behave like such a jerk, Glenn? Seriously, in that arena,
you and Ike are basically cut from the same cloth. We could have a
decent discussion, but you have to start being a horse's behind. Why?

> According to Paul, teaching doctrine not delivered by Christ to the
> Apostles and from them to the Church is Heresy.
>
> Titus 3:
> 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
> strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
> 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Look at those two verses again, Glenn - are you saying that verse nine
is giving the description of a heretic? If you are, I have to differ,
because I just don't see it.

> 1 Cor 15:
> 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
> unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
> 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached
> unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
> 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
> how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Here Paul is speaking about the Gospel and the preaching of another
gospel - IOW, teaching a way to salvation different than what Jesus
taught. Whacky theologies that are not whacky in their teaching about
salvation are therefore not heresy according to the above Scripture,
Glenn. Yet, the above does not speak specifically about heresy, does
it?

> Tim 1:
> 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into
> Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

Still nothing specifically about heresy, just differing doctrines.

> 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
> the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy
> and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
> manslayers,
> 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
> menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
> thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
> 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was
> committed to my trust.

Do you see the word heresy there? I sure don't.

> 1 Tim 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome
> words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine
> which is according to godliness;

Still yet another Scripture that says nothing specific about heresy.
It looks like you are reading "heresy" when it actually reads
something else, whaddya think?

> And also Jude wrote
> [KJV] Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of
> the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and
> exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once
> delivered unto the saints.

Another verse where heresy is not mentioned. Weren't you trying to
make a point about heresy and heretics? Why did you go into all this
other stuff?

> ALL of this teaches that the Gospel and Sound Doctrine is what was
> taught by Christ to His apostles, including Paul, which the Apostles
> then delivered to the First Century Church, and recorded for us.
>
> Heresy is what came after.
>
> An Heretic is one who teaches some doctrine not delivered by the
> Apostles to the Church.

Not according to the Scripture you provided.

> You are a heretick.

I am? When and where did I teaching heretical doctrine?

> Yep, according to you, your 'free speech' means you can lie about what
> someone says.

Where did I lie. Show me where I lied, Glenn.

> LOL! Oh? So you can 'translate' one man's words, then lie about what he
> said, and THAT is OK?

Again, show me where I lied.

> No, Heretick, when you falsify one's words that makes you a liar and a
> false accuser -- whether John, or Jude or Peter wrote them, or not.

Show me where I lied.

> Do you really think that your ridicule and name-calling alters the fact
> that I have told the truth and you have demonstrated that you are a liar
> and false accuser?

Again, show me where I lied, Glenn. Then we'll have something to
discuss.

Chuck Stamford

unread,

Oct 15, 2007, 12:33:52 AM10/15/07

"<A John 3:16 Whosoever>" <kasey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192409105....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 14, 12:36 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable
>
> Well, actually, there are several schools of thought on what the
> unforgivable sin is actually is. Saying unequivocably that it is
> blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is one belief, but Scripture isn't
> completely clear on whether that is it.

Actually, Scripture couldn't be clearer that "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit"
can't be forgiven - Matt. 12:31-32, Mark 3:29-30, Luke 12:10, 1 John
5:16-17. Both Jesus and John give us this information, and do so
unambiguously when taken together.

Unfortunately, what is not so clear is what this sin, as an act or state of
the heart, is. All we can say with certainty is that those who commit it
are beyond salvation, and notice that they have this horrific property in
common only with those who die rejecting Christ's gospel of redemption and
forgiveness and unrepentant in their heart's desires. This similarity
between the eternal state of those who commit the unpardonable sin and those
who die rejecting Christ has lead many to believe that both sins are one and
the same, which then leads them to assert that it's not possible for a
Christian to commit "blasphemy (against) the Holy Ghost".

There's a certain logic in this, but it's not the kind that leads to
necessarily true conclusions (eg. it could be true that to people share a
property; i.e., eternal punishment, without it being true they acquired that
property by the same means - thus "broad is the path that leads to
destruction"), and so it would be wise to tread softly here; not be too
dogmatic, or unwittingly go beyond what Scripture allows in our speculations
(not that I'm suggesting you've done any thing of the kind here!). It's my
belief that there are a lot of other truths taught in Scripture that bear
tangentially on this subject in that they can act as a sort of "delimiting"
factor in our musings as to the exact nature of the unpardonable sin that
makes it unpardonable, where "all manner of sin and blasphemy" *except* this
particular one are pardonable by Christ's sacrifice and the redemptive power
of God's grace and mercy.

snip

>
> Why do you behave like such a jerk, Glenn? Seriously, in that arena,
> you and Ike are basically cut from the same cloth. We could have a
> decent discussion, but you have to start being a horse's behind. Why?

Good luck with this. If anyone has ever had a "decent discussion" with
Glenn, and entered that discussion as an orthodox Christian who holds to the
faith "once delivered to the saints", I've never seen it or heard of it. I
was going to suggest to you that you follow
xprt.net/~servitum/main/about/personal/story.html, to view a "biography" of
Glenn's life he approved as written and featured prominently on his personal
website, but it appears to be no longer working. Perhaps Glenn's pride
finally lost out to his annoyance at being continually criticized based on
this story. In any case, it may have provided you some additional insight
into what makes Glenn "tick"; what *fundamentally* motivates him, as opposed
to what he'd like you to believe motivates him, or what superficially
motivates him.

I'm sure he still has both this approved bio and his autobiographical
adenddum to it available upon request. He's not the sort of guy who could
destroy anything that tended to cast him in a good light...even if he has to
write it himself.

One final thing about Glenn - like Pastor Dave and WAY too many others in
this forum, he doesn't know (or if he knows, will not acknowledge) the
significant difference in nature between a "lie" and making a false
statement. You will NEVER get him to admit that the former is a sin while
the latter is simply being fallible; which is to say, true to our nature as
God created us BEFORE the Fall of Adam. Instead, he will react to ANY
statement of fact he doesn't believe is true as if he has been "lied" to,
and then use this false concept of "lie" to condemn the characters of those
who dispute with him over his transparently heretical beliefs concerning a
number of the essentially Christian doctrines.

Chuck Stamford (who rejoices to be known as a "heretic" by such as Glenn)

Glenn

unread,

Oct 15, 2007, 11:56:17 PM10/15/07

<A John 3:16 Whosoever> wrote:

[KJV] Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

[KJV] Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of
man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in
the world to come.

Sounds pretty unequivocal to me....

>
>> -- but, then, I'm sure you have some scripture to show otherwise?
>
> Never said or implied I did. I thought it interesting that you, of
> all people, would hold hope for the salvation of those you vilify
> regularily in Usenet. You seem so angry and hateful, really.
>
>> Since 'heresy' is forgivable, then even an heretic like Dave, Ike and
>> pulpitfire -- and yes, you and Carl too -- can be saved.
>
> Now, you yourself have stated above that heresy is not the
> unforgivable sin. Believing such, you are then acknowledging that
> someone who has committed heresy is not yet dammed. If that is the
> case, then someone who is already saved, but teaches a heretical or
> false doctrine, would not be condemned, correct? I wasn't aware that
> you believed in once-saved-always-saved, Glenn. Glad to hear it.
>

A perfect example of you 'translating' what someone says into something
they did not say -- or mean.

When you falsify what someone writes or says, that makes you a liar.

<A John 3:16 Whosoever>

unread,

Oct 16, 2007, 12:17:09 AM10/16/07

On Oct 15, 8:56 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> Sounds pretty unequivocal to me....

Like I said, there are several schools of thought on exactly what the
unpardonable sin is. That is a fact. I didn't say I necessarily
agreed with the others, I merely pointed out that there is some debate
on the subject in scholarly circles. Now, of course, you would never
fit into any scholarly circles since you are not in the least
scholarly, but you certainly run in circles alot in your thinking and
reasoning.

> A perfect example of you 'translating' what someone says into something
> they did not say -- or mean.

Then maybe you should learn how to convey your thoughts more clearly,
Glenn. You are not a good at teaching or making implicit what you are
trying to say.

> When you falsify what someone writes or says, that makes you a liar.

It would be impossible for me to falsify what you wrote since what you
did write was there for all to see. If there was no reference point
for what you had written and then it were changed without indicating
that you did not say it at all - *that* would be falsifying what you
wrote.

I know you try to appear intelligent, but statements like you made
above betray your true intelligence quotient, Glenn.

Message has been deleted

joerev...@bellsouth.net

unread,

Oct 16, 2007, 11:07:53 AM10/16/07

"<A John 3:16 Whosoever>" <kasey...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1192508229.8...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 15, 8:56 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> Sounds pretty unequivocal to me....
>
> Like I said, there are several schools of thought on exactly what the
> unpardonable sin is.

They ignore the clear statement of scripture, (which you snipped.)

snowpheonix

unread,

Oct 16, 2007, 11:24:29 AM10/16/07

On Oct 14, 2:15 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:

I'd be happy to show you why people get so divided.
Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every
kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house
divided against a house falleth.

Those are the words of the Messiah Yeshua and in every bible today is
the trojan horse of the Christian church.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the
uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the
circumcision was unto Peter;

The 13th apostle, Paul, claimed he had, "the gospel of the
uncircumcision", but what is it? What are the tenant of this other
gospel hidden inside of your bible? Today we have dozens of different
denominations of Christian church's and different translations of the
same text of scriptures but why? All of the differences between
church's that use only the Torah and the Prophets and the New
Testament can be traced to the Trojan horse the false Apostle Paul.

Whether the reader believe in 1, 2, 10 or 613 commandments from our
Creator, the differences are sourced in Paul. Paul preached only 1
Commandment, the Messiah concluded that you can sum up the entire
Torah (5 books of Moses) in 2 Commandments, our very literal brothers
of Judaism believe 613 commandments and of course we have the 10
commandments given on Mt. Sinai.

Now some believe Paul was for the Law and some believe Paul was
against the law and quote things like:
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it
to his cross;

Good for them I say. I will not argue this point at all because where
I'm going is to the real doctrine of the "uncircumcision". Paul was
definitely against the practice and made some very outlandish quotes
for us such as:
Php 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the
concision.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing.

Why was he so against the practice? One of the most interesting and
telling quotes of Paul is:

1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not
expedient: all things are lawful for me, but (I will not be brought
under the power of any).
1Co 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall
destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for
the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

Now keep that quote in mind as we jump to the Revelation of John:
Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; ...
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how
thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them
which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Now we look into Ephesus and here we find the book,
Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle

O.K. that's not looking to good but it must be another apostle,
right? What else did the Messiah say?
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.

Alright, so Peter is the Rock of our church, did he say anything about
Paul to support him?
2Pe 3:15 ...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the
wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 ... all his epistles,...some things hard to be understood, which
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 ...beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the
wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

Error of the wicked? Led away? Beware? Wow. But he does call him
brother. Oh wait,
1Pe 2:17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the
king.
He calls everybody brother, does he say any more? Paul isn't named
again personally but we do find one of Paul's closest allies:

1Pe 5:12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I
have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true
grace of God wherein ye stand.
1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you,
saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.

The church that is Babylon? Isn't that spoken of in Revelations?
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON
THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Wait, am I sure about Silvanus?
2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the
Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

Wait, what other proof is there, this is the bible and he's an apostle
were talking about.. because your trying to tell me Paul is the church
of Babylon? O.K. let us go back to Revelations, What church is next?
Smyrna, that was located just north of Ephesus and its church is not
written about in any other scripture but it says:

Rev 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These
things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art
rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and
are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Well Paul was a Jew, right. Let us see what Paul says:
1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews (I became as a Jew), that I might gain the
Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might
gain them that are under the law;
Act 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the
chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak
Greek?
Act 21:38 Art not thou that (Egyptian), which before these days
madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand
men that were murderers?
Act 22:27 And having come, the commander said to him, "Say to me, are
you a Roman?" And he said, "Yes."
Gal 2:15 We who are (Jews by nature)
2Co 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I.
Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the (stock of Israel), of the
tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a
Pharisee;
Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a (Jew of Tarsus), a
city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city:
Act 13:1 Now there were in the (church that was at Antioch) certain
prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger,
and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, (which had been brought up with
Herod the tetrarch, and Saul).

Now wait, how can he be "of the stock of Israel" and also a Roman
Pharisee from Tarsus that spoke Greek?
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The
apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which
are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

So, they are Gentiles in Cilicia.
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called
the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and
of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

Wait? What city was Stephen in and with who?
Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose
Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and
Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and (Nicolas a
proselyte of Antioch):

The synagogue of the Libertines? Now that's the only mention of them
in the entire scripture. Now this must have been the synagogue that
Paul was trained at. What happened to Stephen?
Act 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not
to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord
Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also
was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment
of them that slew him.

And here is the birth of Paul from the gentile synagogue of the
Libertines. So he wasn't a Jew at all except, "by nature". Nicolas a
proselyte of Antioch? What's the story there?
Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
But that was sent to the church of Ephesus that had the apostle that
was a liar and wasn't an apostle.. did he lie about his name?
Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast
there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast
a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

Another church in Asia, but Paul was a big Apostle and Nicolaitanes..?
Sounds like good old Saint Nick wasn't a good thing. That is a
stretch but it's interesting how all the areas in around where Paul
went, references to the doctrine of Baal and Babylon keep cropping
up. We all know that Saul admitted he was a murderer. What next?

Act 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great
lamentation over him.
Act 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter
against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
Act 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues,
that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he
might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every
house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

So we see that they returned Stephen to Jerusalem, to the high priest
and Paul was hired by the very same high Priest that just murdered the
Messiah, Caiaphas.
Mat 26:57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to
Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were
assembled.
Act 4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and
Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were
gathered together at Jerusalem.

How did he get that commission? Who did he know?
Act 13:1 Now there were in the (church that was at Antioch) certain
prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger,
and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, (which had been brought up with
Herod the tetrarch, and Saul).

He know Herod the Tetrarch, the guy that murdered John the Baptist and
married his brother's sister?
Luk 3:19 But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias
his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had
done,
Luk 3:20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.
Mar 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

He got a commission to go kill the church of the Messiah and went out
for that infamous trip to Damascus synagogues. What happened?

Recorded three times in the book of Acts are 3 accounts of the same
journey to Damascus.
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou
have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the
city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Act 9:8 And Saul arose from the earth;

Notice the men heard the voice but On the other occasion they didn't...
Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were
afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto
me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of
all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Act 22:11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being
led by the hand of them that were with me,
Instead of being told to go to "the city" he is now told go to
Damascus.

And the third time is completely different, No longer being told to
"go" somewhere" he's told on the spot. Now I think if Jesus came to
me and stopped me on the road in a "blinding" light, I would remember
what he said; but since he is at the end of his rope on lies here, he
tells King Agripa that he has to be "delivered from the people and
from gentiles". I thought he was the apostle of the gentiles.

Act 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto
thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of
these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I
will appear unto thee;
Act 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles,
unto whom now I send thee,
Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to
light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified
by faith that is in me.

And now we have the birth of the Apostle, or is he? What did the
Messiah say about apostles?
Luk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and
of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in
them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

O.K. there are twelve, Judas is dead? Who's the twelfth apostle?
Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the
hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from
which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon
Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

O.K. that explains the book of Matthew. He was hand picked by the
"Rock" of the Messiah's church. The question begs does anybody except
Paul and his scribe Luke call him an apostle?

Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole
church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul
and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men
among the brethren:

With Paul.. Not the Apostle Paul? Does that happen more? I remember
Peter said he was Brother Paul but come on, most of the New Testament
is written by him.
1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus
Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

You mean he was questioned to be an apostle?
1Co 9:2 If I be (not an apostle unto others), yet doubtless I am to
you: for (the seal of mine apostleship are ye) in the Lord.

O.K. so YOU are the seal of his apostleship and not Peter, the rock of
the Messiah's church.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
All the apostles... Not Paul?
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out
of due time.
1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that (am not meet to be
called an apostle), because I persecuted the church of God.

But wait, if he can meet the Son of God and not remember the story,
telling 3 different versions of the same instance, why should I
believe him? Well, now that he is an apostle of Jesus let's see what
he says,

Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, (not where
Christ was named), lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Wait, did he just call the Son of God, "another man". That couldn't
be right, what else does he preach?

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, (as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtlety), so your minds *should be corrupted (from the
simplicity that is in Christ).

>From Christ?

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth "another Jesus", (whom we
have not preached), or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not
received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well
bear with him.

Another Jesus, you mean there is more then one?
2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was NOT a whit behind the very chiefest
apostles.
2Co 11:7 Have (I committed an offense in abasing myself) that ye
might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God
freely?

An apostle for who then? You preached freely? You mean from the
doctrine of the synagogue of Libertines, got it.

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but (ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified) in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
by the Spirit of (our God).
1Co 6:12 (All things are lawful unto me), but all things are not
expedient: (all things are lawful for me), but (I will not be brought
under the power of any).
1Co 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall
destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for (fornication, but
for the Lord); and the Lord for the body.

So your God says that all things are lawful and you are liberated but
that certainly doesn't sound like anything the Messiah preached. O.K.
so you've come with me this far what further proof do you have of what
your saying because this all sounds to unbelievable. Wait, what did
Revelation say ...?

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast
there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast
a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

O.K. well what about fornication?
1Co 5:1 (It is reported commonly) that there is fornication among
you, (and such fornication as is not so much as named among the
Gentiles), that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2 (And ye are puffed up), and have not rather mourned, that he
that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. Note:
Fornication isn't so much but reporting it...
1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but (present in spirit),
have judged already, as though (I were present), concerning him that
hath so done this deed.
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered
together, (and my spirit), with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
--- Now what's this about gathering together in Paul's spirit?
1Co 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the (destruction of the
flesh), that the spirit may be saved (in the day) of the Lord Jesus.

Saved in the day but not by "the Lord Jesus".. wow.. What apostle
calls for men to be delivered to Satan?

O.K. So what happened when he preached all this stuff? First they
sent him back to Jerusalem for a trail under Jewish Laws.
Act 11:25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

Act 15:2 When therefore (Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension
and disputation) with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas,
and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles
and elders about this question.

Act 9:27 But (Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles), ...

Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and
the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and
Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

What happened with Barnabas?
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Doesn't sound like he like Barnabas. The results of the trial?
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the
world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which
from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

They sent escorts with them to the church's they went to and put
letters in the hands to start by teaching 4 specific teachings
included on the Sabbath.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole
church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul
and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men
among the brethren:
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The
apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which
are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

What happened to the escorts?
Act 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and
preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
Act 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they
departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and
sailed unto Cyprus;
Act 15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by
the brethren unto the grace of God.

So nobody agreed with him most stayed in Antioch except Silas, what
happened to him?
Act 16:12 And from thence to Philippi,
Act 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was
gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace
unto the rulers,
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the
city of Thyatira, which worshipped God,
Paul shacks up with Lydia.
Act 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was
gone, they caught Paul and Silas,
Act 16:23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast
them into prison,
Act 16:36 And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The
magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in
peace.
Act 17:14 And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as
it were to the sea: but Silas and Timothy abode there still.

Paul left with these escorts and they took over the church's so Paul
left them behind and continued on past Galatia where he wrote his
book. He's angry because of what happened at the trial and it comes
out clearly in this writing. He goes where they don't know about him
and writes back to his old church:

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,
and abode with him fifteen days.
Yeah when Barnabas dragged you back.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
Except Peter (Cephas) and John
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I
lie not.
Gal 1:21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which
were in Christ:
Gal 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in
times past now preacheth (the faith which once he destroyed).

Now who says that Christ destroyed the faith? But what does he say
happened at the trail?
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the
face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness
come by the law, then (Christ is dead) in vain.

Now read closely, He says, Christ is DEAD!
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Didn't he just say in chapter one he say none of the Apostles? Notice
the slam, "who seemed to be pillars".

Gal 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same
which I also was forward to do.

Now we all know that is not what happened at that trial. His sidekick
Luke recorded a totally different event. But he rails against the
apostles ever further:
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the grace of Christ unto (another gospel):
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ.

That was the Men Peter sent to take over his old churches. Those
darn, "Jews". But here's the real teller,

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an (angel from heaven), preach (any other
gospel) unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, (if any man preach any
other gospel) unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed.

So he places a curse on Peter who wrote a letter to Galatians, Judas
surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered
throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Why did he curse Peter?
Act 15:7 ...Peter rose up, and said unto them, ...that the Gentiles by my
mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Then he goes on later and preaches against the Messiah.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the (liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free), and be not entangled again with the (yoke of bondage).

What did the Messiah preach?
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and
lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Well, that couldn't be all he said, right? Well according to the
scribe Luke, Peter made this statement,
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck
of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

When speaking of burdens, it again leads us back to Revelations 2
Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many
as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of
Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Rev 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. (That
would mean Moses and the Prophets)

Which again is only mentioned.. You guessed it,
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the
city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord
opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

So yet another place that Paul influenced with a reference to Satan.
What was Paul position on Satan? In the red letter KJV we find that
certain words were added to give context but let's take those added
words out and restore it.

Act 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and the Gentiles, unto
whom now I send thee,
Act 26:18 To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the
(power of Satan unto God), that they may receive forgiveness of sins,
and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in
me.

and2532 the3588 power1849 of Satan4567 unto1909 God,2316

So we see "Christian" apologist trying to rectify Satanic teachings.
But if this is true then this can't be the only reference right?
Let's look at all his references to Satan:

Rom 16:20 And the (God of peace) shall bruise Satan under (your feet)
shortly. The (grace of our Lord) Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Our Lord? The God of Peace? What did the Messiah teach?

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not
to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

That's certainly doesn't sound like a "God of Peace". So who is this
God of Peace?
Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him
had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth
conquering, and to conquer.
Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he
that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness
he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white
horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

O.K. so that's Jesus and he makes war and he conquers.

Dan 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper
in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace
shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of
princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

By Peace shall destroy many? Could this be the God of Peace? O.K.
what's next?
1Co 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that (the spirit) may be (saved in the day) of the Lord Jesus.

Is this the "apostle" of Christ asking for men to be delivered to
Satan again? Saved in the day... wait, wouldn't an apostle want
somebody saved By Jesus Christ now? The Spirit, not His spirit.
Strange but what else...

1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

O.K. My English teacher would rip this apart for the double negatives.
Defraud, is defined to cheat. So don't cheat except it be with consent
for a time, that Satan doesn't tempt you for free or illegal
indulgence of lust. I guess he can't tempt you if your already
practicing it right? That just doesn't sound like an apostle of Jesus
Christ. Must be something better than this, what's next:

2Co 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, (I forgive) also: for if (I
forgave) any thing, to whom (I forgave it), for your sakes (forgave I
it) in the person of Christ;
2Co 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not
ignorant of his devices.

Wait, In the person of Christ? Did he just say over and over again
that he had power to forgive sins? Well, he is an apostle but what
does the Messiah say? I think Paul wasn't very ignorant of Satan's
devices, he knew just how he worked.

Mar 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth
to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

What's next?
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an
angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if (his ministers also be
transformed as the ministers of righteousness); whose end shall be
(according to their works).

Well from what I've seen so far, I'd have to agree with you Paul, I
thought you were a minister of righteousness too.

2Co 12:7 And lest (I should be exalted above measure) through the
abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a bellow in the
flesh,( the messenger of Satan) to buffet me, lest (I should be
exalted above measure).
2Co 12:8 For this thing (I besought the Lord) thrice, that it might
depart (from me). Note: Not Jesus Christ
2Co 12:9 And (he said) unto me, (My grace is sufficient for thee):
for (my strength is made perfect) in weakness. Most gladly therefore
will (I rather glory) in my infirmities, that (the power of Christ may
rest upon me). So again the power of Christ is not for Christ but for
"me".
2Co 12:10 Therefore (I take pleasure in infirmities), in reproaches,
in necessities, in persecutions, (in distresses for Christ's sake):
for when (I am) weak, then (am I strong).
2Co 12:11 (I am) become a fool in glorying; (ye have compelled me):
for (I ought to have been commended of you): (for in nothing am I
behind the very chiefest apostles), though I be nothing.

So here we see Paul claiming authority over Peter, humbly of course.
Why?
2Co 12:16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being
crafty, I caught you with guile.

That's stuff sounds just like a prophesy, let's see:
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also
upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be
like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the
pit.
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and
consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble,
that did shake kingdoms;
Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the
cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Lucifer is a man? The only time this name is mentioned in the bible.
Now many have confused this name with Satan.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is
the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

That doesn't sound like a man, so what else does it say about this man
in Isaiah 14?
Isa 14:22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts,
and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew,
saith the LORD.

Now there goes that Babylon thing again.. what else?
Isa 14:25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my
mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off
them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

Assyrian? Wait,
Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a (Jew of Tarsus), a
city in Cilicia

Cilicia was in Assyria back in the day. What's this about his yoke
depart from off them? Prisoners. Could it be just like in Exodus 20?
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

What next?
Isa 14:26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth:
and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.

Now how did this hand stretch out upon ALL the nations of the earth?
Could it be that his work is in the number 1 selling book of all
time? But we read that clearly he's a man. This is getting weird but
come on, what else?
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered
unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is
Hymenaeus and Philetus;

Now this is the apostle of Jesus Christ delivering people to Satan
again, weird.
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all
power and signs and lying wonders,
1Th 2:18 Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and
again; but Satan hindered us.

1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Many gods? Aren't apostles suppose to teach One God.
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of
this world, according to the (prince of the power of the air), (the
spirit that now worketh) in the children of disobedience:

. O.K. That's just strange, back to Paul's adventures.

What happened after he went to the next cities when his first church's
were taken over?
First the churches we find this report..

Act 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but
almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away
much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:

Turned away?...
2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned
away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Really? So what do you think of them Paul?
2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall
come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful,
unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than
lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
from such turn away.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead
captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

Yeah, nasty ole Gentiles.. So what next Paul?

2Co 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you
service.

That sound innocent but.. wait,

Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the
door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a
thief and a robber.

Did he really rob churches? That's what the men of Ephesus said. Is
that why they rejected his doctrine?
Act 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither
robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

But wait, they worshiped Diana, didn't they?
Act 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which
were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the
people, and laid hands on him,
Act 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that
teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this
place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath
polluted this holy place.

Jews of Asia? These couldn't be the same ones..
Act 21:29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an
Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

O.K. then who were they men of Ephesian? What were there names?
Act 19:24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which
made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the
craftsmen;
Act 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus...

Demetrius, a silversmith.
Act 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with
him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are
deputies: let them implead one another.

But still, he was a bad guy because he made statues of Diana.. right?
It was a lie that he brought charges of church robbing against Paul.
Right?
3Jn 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is
good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not
seen God.
3Jn 1:12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth
itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is
true.

Wow, here we see the real Apostle in his shortest letter naming a man
named Demetrius but this can't be the same one, Right?
Well, who was the letter written to that they needed to attest to the
good standing of Demetrius?
3Jn 1:1 The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love in the
truth.

O.K. then who was Gaius?
Act 19:28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath,
and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
Act 19:29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having
caught (Gaius and Aristarchus), men of Macedonia, (Paul's companions
in travel), they rushed with one accord into the theater.
Act 19:35 And when the town clerk had appeased the people, he said,
Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the
city of the Ephesians is a worshiper of the great goddess Diana, and
of the image which fell down from Jupiter?

So we see that Gaius was a leader in Ephesus that appeased the town.
What happened next? The second trial.
Why was he brought to trial?
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the
Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they
ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the
customs.

While in the trial he tells a lie and causes an uproar.

Act 23:6 Now Sha'ul, perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the
other Pharisees, cried out in the council, "Men, brothers, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, I am being judged concerning the
expectation and resurrection of the dead!"

The result was Romans dragging him out.
Act 23:10 And a great dissension having come, the commander, fearing
lest Sha'ul would be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the body of
soldiers to go down and seize him from their midst, and bring him into
the barracks.

Why, just before the trial
Act 22:29 Then at once those who were about to examine him withdrew
from him. And the commander was also afraid after he found out that he
was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

So now the fact that he's working for the high priest comes out and
the Roman's protect him. He goes out on his third missionary journey
where he preaches this,

1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law
before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1Co 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye
go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye
not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

In the book of Acts He is asked if he will go before Jerusalem to be
judged in the temple. Did he practice what he preached? Note: At the
time, Nero was Caesar.

Act 25:9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered
Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of
these things before me?
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I
ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very
well knowest.

What happened to his earlier account? He said,
Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine
heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at
Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.

Some might say this was a smart move but by his own actions we find he
pays the price for telling lies.
Act 26:32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set
at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

He gets away again supposedly by a shipwreck with all his friends in
Corinth and we find out that Gaius is now hosting Paul and Tertius in
Corinth, near Sparta, who goes on to right the book of Romans.

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and
Gaius;

Rom 16:22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.
Rom 16:23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.
Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a
brother.
2Ti 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at
Miletum sick.

Who was Trophimus?
Act 21:29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an
Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

You suppose?
1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am
chief.
Who was that other traveling companion? Aristarchus, Paul's companions
in travel..
Col 4:10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Mark,
sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if
he come unto you, receive him;)

No wonder Peter said,
1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you,
saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.

In Summery. I think Paul was a intelligent man and I think he
believed a lot of the things he preached from that synagogue of the
Libertines. He used that theology to inject his own into Christianity
but the bottom line is that what he taught and what the Messiah
HaMashiach Yeshua taught were completely different. Did Paul do a
good work? Yes but not intentionally. He is Lucifer as spoken of by
the prophet Isaiah. At times Paul was channeling Satan himself and it
becomes obvious but then other rare times he seemed to be truly
inspired. (Eph 6, 1 Cor 13) He believed what he was teaching and
because of his Romanized Christianity, the bible survived and lives
were changed. Men came to the truth and found Elohim the Rock of all,
creator of all things in heaven and on earth. The job of modern
scholars and pastor is to reject the false teachings of Paul
altogether. As the very insightful Rock of the Church Peter taught,

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Eze 13:2 Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that
prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own
hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD;
Eze 13:3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that
follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
Eze 13:4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts.
Eze 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge
for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the
LORD.
Eze 13:6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD
saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to
hope that they would confirm the word.
Eze 13:7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a
lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not
spoken?
Eze 13:8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken
vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the
Lord GOD.
Eze 13:9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity,
and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people,
neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel,
neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know
that I am the Lord GOD.
Eze 13:10 Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying,
Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo,
others daubed it with untempered mortar:

1. they shall not be in the assembly of my people,
2. neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of
Israel,
3. neither shall they enter into the land of Israel
4. they have seduced my people, saying, Peace
5. Because ye have spoken vanity
6. they have made others to hope

1Th 1:3 ...and patience of hope..
1Th 5:13 And be at peace among yourselves.
1Th 2:20 For ye are our glory and joy.

The book of Thessalonians meets all the requirements of false
prophecy.

1Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the
Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace be unto you, (and peace), from God our Father, and the Lord
Jesus Christ.

The church of Babylon should be the first clue that the Book of
Thessalonians is trouble but let's see what we find from the brothers
of the synagogue of the Libertines.

1Th 2:2 But even after that we had suffered before, and were
shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi

Act 16:21 And teach customs, which are (not lawful for us to
receive), neither to observe, (being Romans).
Act 16:22 And the multitude rose up together against them: and the
magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them.
Act 16:23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast
them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely:
Act 16:24 Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the
inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

Now more then likely being a Roman prison and Paul was a Roman. Draw
your own conclusion. Considering the Roman empire worshipped many
gods, I find it hard to believe it would not be lawful to receive
other customs, unless of course they were Jewish. Let's see...

Mar 8:27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of
Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto
them, Whom do men say that I am?

So we see that the real Messiah had been to Philippi and had already
touched the hearts of these people. How do we know?
Php 1:1 Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the
saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and
deacons:

The had an entire church already that held bishops and deacons. Who
did Paul influence in Philippi?

Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the
city of (Thyatira), which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the
Lord opened, that (she attended unto the things which were spoken of
Paul).
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought
us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into
my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

She constrained you Paul? Really.
Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many
as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of
Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

So Let's continue further into the book...

1Th 2:6 ...when we *might have been burdensome, (as the apostles of
Christ).
1Th 2:8 So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to
have imparted unto you, (NOT the gospel of God) only, but also (our
own souls), because ye were dear unto us.

Yeah, I'll bet like Lydia did.

1Th 2:10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and
unblamably we behaved ourselves (among you that believe):

What about the rest of the time Paul?

1Th 2:18 Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and
again; but Satan hindered us.
1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God
which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like
things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and
have persecuted us:

Now this is where a lot of people get false doctrine from. You either
believe Paul or you believe the Messiah.

Mat 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to
scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

The Messiah says that the Gentiles crucified him and Paul says it was
the Jews. Interesting that he speaks of Jews "killing the Lord" and
then goes on to say Satan hindered us. The fact is Paul was hiding
because his false witness was known and so he went to places that
wouldn't know the gospel or Jesus to sell his snake oil.

1Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be
saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them
to the uttermost.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, PETER rose up, and
said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago
God made choice among us, that (the Gentiles by my mouth should hear
the word of the gospel), and believe.
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all
the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth
all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the
world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which
from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled,
and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole
church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul
and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men
among the brethren:

1Th 4:14 For (if we believe that Jesus died and rose again), even so
(them also which sleep in Jesus) will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not
prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the
(dead in Christ) shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then (we which are alive and remain) shall be caught up
together (with THEM IN THE CLOUDS to meet the (Lord in the AIR)): and
so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of
this world, according to the (prince of the power of the air), the
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

So, those who are DEAD in Christ then we which are alive. Think about
that for a while. It doesn't say, those who didn't know Christ or
those without Christ, it says, the DEAD in Christ.

Now I already feel that your going to say That Paul did enter into the
Land of Israel. What the prophesy says is that, neither shall they
enter into the land of Israel. It doesn't say they were never in
Israel just that they won't enter into it. When Paul wrote this book
with Timothy had to be after his second journey because that is when
he met Timothy.

Paul meets Timothy
Act 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain
disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain woman, which
was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

Lystra was most definitely his second journey. The closest he came to
entering into the land of Israel when he made these false prophesies
was after being accused in Ephesus for robbing the church:

Act 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea,
and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
Caesarea was in Samaria. Festus
Act 27:3 And the next day we touched at Sidon. And Julius courteously
entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh
himself.

Sidon is in Phoenicia.
Act 27:4 And when we had launched from thence, we sailed under
Cyprus, because the winds were contrary.

So regardless of when he wrote the books, he never touched ground in
Israel from when he wrote the books.

Message has been deleted

Bible Bob

unread,

Oct 16, 2007, 4:55:33 PM10/16/07

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:03:50 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:07:53 -0500, <joerev...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.

> Explain, then, exactly HOW one blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
>
> What would you have to do in order to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?
>
>
John,

There you go, John, good statement and good question. Maybe if you
used your secular writing skills in lieu of your religious ones, you'd
get better results. I've often noticed that you get bound up when you
write about religious themes but are freer when writing about
non-religious themes.

Jack Baun

unread,

Oct 16, 2007, 5:53:54 PM10/16/07

"Glenn" <gamc...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:ff1cp...@enews2.newsguy.com...

> --When you deny the holy spirit there is no one to ask forgiveness from so
> that is unforgivable JB

joerev...@bellsouth.net

unread,

Oct 16, 2007, 9:12:33 PM10/16/07

"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:8n2ah3ptvehpq0e4t...@4ax.com...

> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:07:53 -0500, <joerev...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>

> Explain, then, exactly HOW one blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
>
> What would you have to do in order to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?
>
>
>

Now that is another question, and does require some interpretation.
That interpretation also, however, ought to start with what the Bible
actually says.
To what situation was Jesus responding when he spoke of an "unpardonable
sin"?
What is the context of the saying?

Message has been deleted

NOs...@no.spam

unread,

Oct 17, 2007, 10:42:06 AM10/17/07

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:03:50 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>

> Explain, then, exactly HOW one blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
>
> What would you have to do in order to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?
>
>

'You' CLAIM to be 'an ordained Pastor'- so go ahead and tell him;
after all, a REAL Pastor would know that, right?

NOs...@no.spam

unread,

Oct 17, 2007, 10:43:41 AM10/17/07

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:56:23 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
> In fact, there are people in this very group who repeatedly commit
>the unpardonable sin. They accuse God's elect of being of Satan.

What makes 'you' imagine 'you're God's elect'?

Bible Bob

unread,

Oct 17, 2007, 1:03:19 PM10/17/07

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:56:23 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:12:33 -0500, <joerev...@bellsouth.net>

> In fact, I have two answers to the question. This is one occasion in
>which I don't believe there is "one correct answer."
>
> There is one sin; there re two ways of committing the sin.
>
> 1. when one attributes God's work (miracles/personal spiritual
>growth) to the devil, one has blasphemed; therefore, one has committed
>the unpardonable sin.
> 2. when one REJECTS God flatly (one has rejected God's offer of
>indwelling via the Holy Spirit), one has blasphemed, and therefore,
>one has committed the unpardonable sin.
>
> Both actions involve a rejection of the Holy Spirit.

>
> In fact, there are people in this very group who repeatedly commit
>the unpardonable sin. They accuse God's elect of being of Satan.

John,

Yep, like the world famous theologian and philosopher John Weatherly
has said on many occassions; "When you point your finger at someone,
three are pointing back." What is your pet name for me (God's elect)?

With regard to blasphemy:

Mat 12:31 KJV Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and

blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy {against} the
{Holy} Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Rev 13:6 KJV And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to
blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Jesus was speaking to Israel, specifically religous leaders whose
father was the devil. To gain eternal life they had do the Law and
the Prophets. Getting saved by grace as we are saved by grace was not
yet available because Jesus had not been resurrected. In Matthew the
words "against" and "holy" are both in italics becuase they are not in
the Greek. In Revelation the word "against" is from "pros" denoting
forward motion towards an object, hence towards.

But in verse 32 which is the source for the two ellipsis in verse 31,
niether word is in italics. The word against is from "kata" (down)
and the words "the Holy Ghost" are from "tou pneumatos tou hagiou"
(all words genitive singular neuter). The article before the
adjective hagiou makes it a noun used in regimen placing emphasis as
"the spirit the holy (spirit) which is the gift or agent of God.

Mat 12:32 KJV

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall
not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to
come.

So, in Revealtion the future blasphemy will be the beast speaking
towards God in the sense of the two being on the same plane; hence the
beast speaking as if equal with God. In Matthew, the speaker speaks
down to in oppisition to that which is from above.

In Matthew the speaker is of Israel because the word whosoever from
the Greek is from the relative masculine pronoun hos and the particle
an; not the usual "pas" (all) and means "who perchance". Any of those
of Israel who would speak down towards the spirit the holy (spirit).
They would know better because they knew the Law and were subject to
the Law. Anyone stupid enough to elevate themselves to a position in
their mind to speak down to God's agent would not be forgiven. What
Jesus was speaking by was the spirit of God. They were accusing him
of speaking by the spirit of the devil and in doing so spoke against
the spirit the holy (spirit) through which the words of God came.

That sin will not be forgiven; but it does not say that they will not
gain eternal life. It says the sin will not be forgiven him in the
present and future age (aion) where the future age refers to the
resurrection.

There was a way out during the age following the then current age and
the future age and that was the age that occurs between the Gospels
and Revelation where people are saved by grace. The were not savable
by their works; but were savable by the works accomplished by Jesus
Christ. Whether any of them were; God knows.

The unforgivable sin during this period of time, this age, the
dispensation of grace is to reject the Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who
confesses Jesus as Lord becomes saved. Anyone who does not accept
jesus as Lord is not saved.

Rom 10:9 KJV
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 KJV
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Those verses occur in the parenthesis that exists between Romans 8:39
and Romans 12:1 in a section of scripture that speaks about Israel
(Rom 10:1).

1Jn 5:12-18 KJV
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of
God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of
the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that
ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask
any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we
have the petitions that we desired of him.
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he
shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto
death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for
it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is
begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

A person that is saved is born again of incorruptible seed which is
the eternal life freely given to those who confess Jesus as Lord.
There is another seed spoken of in Genesis 3:15.

1Pe 1:23 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by
the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Gen 3:15 KJV
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.

There are those that are of the seed of God and those that are of the
seed of the serpent. Seed is unchangable. An apple seed will only
produce an apple tree; nothing else and every seed produces fruit
aftere its kind. Those of the seed of the serpent are after their
kind and cannot be after another kind and the kind cannot be changed.
Those born of the serpent are of and belong to the serpent and receive
the same end as the serpent. Those born of the spirit of God are of
God and receive the life that results from that kind of life.

You can pray for a person possessed or obsessed by demons; but you
should not pray for those who are of the seed of the serpent because
your prayers cannot change the inevitable.

Who are the seed of the serpent? Who is the serpent? He is Satan the
god of this world who has dominion over the world systems which may
include political, religious, educational, philosophical, scientific,
etc. etc. systems used in the world.

Only God has foreknowledge. The god of this world only knows what has
been revealed by God to the creation. One of the things God has
revealed is the son of perdition , the man of sin.

Joh 17:12 KJV
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those
that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son
of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

2Th 2:3 KJV
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition;

Does "son of perdition" in John apply to Judas? Judas Iscariot was
literally the son of Simon (John 6:71). Son of perdition is used in
the figurative sense if applicable to Judas or a literal sense if
applicable to another of the house of Israel; then present or future
and could apply to the future son of perdition. Remember, Judas
repented (Mat 27:3) after betraying Jesus and was still alive and
present with the disciples when Jesus ascended (Acts 1:2, Luk 24:33
(Thomas was absent)) but died before Pentecost. How will Judas be
judged at the resurrection? God knows.

Satan has no foreknowledge and does not know when the time for the son
of perdition will be. So he has to have potential candidates readied
for that day; seed of the serpent. He needs a leader. What better
leader than a high ranking member of the religious, political, etc.
world systems.

This should bring you great comfort, John. It won't be you. Despite
all your apparent shortcomings you will never be and can never be the
son of perdition; not even seed of the serpent. The worst you can
hope for is obsession or possession. If one or two aren't enough,
there are still legions available for you if you want them.

But, I like you John, and God loves you; so, I would hope that you set
your goals towards things more acceptable to God. You are one of his
kids, about my age, with but a small number of years left to earn what
God has made available to you. Wood, hay, stubble or gold, silver,
precious stones. I hope you chose the latter. There's only one way
to get the gold; love one another especially those who you perceive to
be unlovable.

joerev...@bellsouth.net

unread,

Oct 18, 2007, 2:43:27 PM10/18/07

"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message

news:795bh394sevveqass...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:12:33 -0500, <joerev...@bellsouth.net>

> In fact, I have two answers to the question. This is one occasion in
> which I don't believe there is "one correct answer."
>
> There is one sin; there re two ways of committing the sin.
>
> 1. when one attributes God's work (miracles/personal spiritual
> growth) to the devil, one has blasphemed; therefore, one has committed
> the unpardonable sin.
> 2. when one REJECTS God flatly (one has rejected God's offer of
> indwelling via the Holy Spirit), one has blasphemed, and therefore,
> one has committed the unpardonable sin.
>
> Both actions involve a rejection of the Holy Spirit.

The Scripture doesn't give any indication that the rejection of the Holy
Spirit is an unpardonable sin.

Your first way above is the context of the saying.

There is nothing in the text in the vicinity of the mention of unpardonable
sin about anyone rejecting God flatly. If you, personally wish to believe
that doing so is unpardonable, then, by all means believe so; but the Bible
does not say this.

>
> In fact, there are people in this very group who repeatedly commit
> the unpardonable sin. They accuse God's elect of being of Satan.

Jesus actually went so far as to say that one could blaspheme against The
Son of Man and be forgiven.
If this is so, then surely blasphemy against the elect can be forgiven.

It is looking upon an action that is clearly good, such as healing: an
action which should be recognized as the work of the Holy Spirit, and
attributing yhat goodness to Satan and that alone which Scripture
characterizes as unforgivable sin.
>
>
>

Rod

unread,

Oct 21, 2007, 3:33:49 PM10/21/07

snowpheonix wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2:15 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to show you why people get so divided.
> Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every
> kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house
> divided against a house falleth.
>
> Those are the words of the Messiah Yeshua and in every bible today is
> the trojan horse of the Christian church.
>

Thanks ! You have put more reason and sanity into two paragraphs
than i have seen in uselessnet in two years. I do very much appreciate
your post, and will be reading it again and saving it.

Rod

Guardian Snowpheonix

unread,

Oct 26, 2007, 2:13:17 AM10/26/07

Until we can consider the fact that the Roman Catholic Church that
canonized out scriptures placed within the pages another doctrine
besides that which the Messiah Yeshua preached, we will never come
together and be one faith, under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.

You will notice brother that SUN worshipers will always start to
justify the belief they have with the prophets and Moses, move on to
the Messiah Yeshua and then end in Paul. Most of them even spend all
there ministry in Paul and those are the true "charismatics" of the
faith.

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom
upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour
the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

The church is broken into pieces already.
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and
shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times
and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times
and the dividing of time.

Notice he will changes time and the laws.

By PEACE

Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of
peace;

Raymond

unread,

Oct 26, 2007, 10:52:49 AM10/26/07

On Oct 26, 1:13 am, Guardian Snowpheonix <snowpheo...@eck.net.au>
wrote:

> On Oct 22, 5:33 am, Rod <nowdefunctm...@nomailanytime.com> wrote:
> > snowpheonix wrote:
> > > On Oct 14, 2:15 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'd be happy to show you why people get so divided.
> > > Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every
> > > kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house
> > > divided against a house falleth.
>
> > > Those are the words of the Messiah Yeshua and in every bible today is
> > > the trojan horse of the Christian church.
>
> > Thanks ! You have put more reason and sanity into two paragraphs
> > than i have seen in uselessnet in two years. I do very much appreciate
> > your post, and will be reading it again and saving it.
>
> > Rod
>
> Until we can consider the fact that the Roman Catholic Church that
> canonized out scriptures placed within the pages another doctrine
> besides that which the Messiah Yeshua preached, we will never come
> together and be one faith, under God, indivisible, with liberty and
> justice for all.
>
> You will notice brother that SUN worshipers will always start to
> justify the belief they have with the prophets and Moses, move on to
> the Messiah Yeshua and then end in Paul. Most of them even spend all
> there ministry in Paul and those are the true "charismatics" of the
> faith.

Who are these SUN worshipers, they do not go to any church, they go to
the beach and sit in the sun till they are red and burned. They have
nothing to do with the church.
You do not know what your talking about, just hate it would seem, seem
you can not even spell the name Jesus in English, try it, or post in
Greek or Hebrew for Yeshua is not English and to mix lnaguages only
brings more confusion.

Guardian Snowpheonix

unread,

Oct 26, 2007, 10:00:50 PM10/26/07

On Oct 27, 12:52 am, Raymond <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:

> Who are these SUN worshipers, they do not go to any church, they go to
> the beach and sit in the sun till they are red and burned. They have
> nothing to do with the church.
> You do not know what your talking about, just hate it would seem, seem
> you can not even spell the name Jesus in English, try it, or post in
> Greek or Hebrew for Yeshua is not English and to mix lnaguages only
> brings more confusion.

If I sayed your name in Greek it would be Ra'moon, is that your name?
Since you are completely ignorant of the idea that HaMashiach Yeshua
was in fact a Hebrew Messiah, you should learn his proper name. If
your English was even close to the name of Yeshua, I could agree with
you but it's not his name brother.

You ask who are the SUN worshipers as if you didn't know because I
would ask you, do you acknowledge the Sabbath or man's tradition?
Every person in the entire scripture, except pagans and when Israel
sinned kept the Sabbath and yet you follow after another I'll bet.

Israel was punished for not keeping the Sabbath, what makes you think
you'll fair any better?

The Sabbath is the sign between YHWY and his people.

Exo 31:12 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
Exo 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily
my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you
throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that
doth sanctify you.
Exo 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto
you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for
whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from
among his people.
Exo 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the
sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the
sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to
observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual
covenant.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever:
for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day
he rested, and was refreshed.
Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of
communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables
of stone, written with the finger of God.

Written as an everlasting day by the his finger.

0 new messages