"I'm changing my mind"

Sounds like a bad thing when it comes to theology, I guess a majority of people may think? Dr. Radmacher tells this story again and again in class: "My former student said to me, 'Dr. R., that's not what you taught seven years ago.' Well... if I'm done learning, then just shoot me!" And he is fully joking and fully serious when he tells this; you might be able to picture his expression. :)

Sure, believers can depart from truth and embark toward error, and that's unfortunate. But if there is no mobility permitted on principle, how are those who are currently drifting in error going to learn something redeeming? I myself want others who are more knowledgeable to encourage me to reconsider whatever might be tradition, and I do that by reckoning with them that the Word as fully fit for reproof.

Is there any grace, for theological error?

Of evangelicals, those who already defend grace toward theological error are Free Grace people. Does God only declare righteous the doctrinally pristine? No! We have been debating in excess of late that one can be saved by believing the "gospel" - and let's say for the moment that the gospel was "glorious" - 1 Cor 15:1-4 (though technically it appears that Stegall's gospel may actually require the most numerous points of content though it is difficult to figure out how to enumerate; therefore my addition may be incorrect). Even the fullest Free Grace gospel does not require belief in the Trinity, or belief in the virgin birth, or belief in other things such as the infallibility of the Bible, does it? These advocates readily explain for the sake of this debate that this is not the case; otherwise, they are adding a long list of biblical ideas to the gospel message. Our justification in Jesus Christ is accomplished without these additional beliefs - in the absence of them - or in the err of them. What about our sanctification?

How long is long enough that someone can walk by faith in Christ; someone who is a new believer founded and secured in everlasting life upon the content of the gospel.... How long, and still either not know about the Trinity or not believe in the Trinity? How long is long enough till it affects someone's sanctification, jeopardizing their obedience, by faith, in Christ? At some point it does, but can you tell your neighbor exactly when and where it has become sin - impossibly they must not have been righteous, in Christ, by faith alone, while also not knowing or receiving these other doctrines?

Or would you tell them that they must believe all doctrine from scripture in order to move forward from being born again, in any intent to walk with Him after that initial moment?

What is the one doctrine requiring our theological precision, in order that one may be sanctified in faith in our LORD after being born again?

Is it not how to walk by faith in Christ?

Miss this, and I don't see how one could be perpetually transformed into the image of Christ. (Of course there is always the reality that believers practice it even while denying or being unaware of the truth, and many new believers have no clue what any doctrine is yet the Spirit leads and teaches them.) I understand faith-righteousness to be the only precise doctrine, if any, necessary for godliness - though all the Word is all Truth and in measure, our challenge for abiding in Christ. Change your mind on this one, though, and the gospel begins to be corrupted in the daily Christian devotion (Galatians 3 - "you foolish Galatians!") and then also, eventually, corrupted in the Christian declaration (Galatians 1 "no other gospel").

I asked, above, if God justifies only the doctrinally pristine; and now I'd like to inquire whether God sanctifies only the doctrinally pristine?

I've always appreciated those who have taught on the subject of "theological legalism" because this is one of Free Grace's ameliorating contributions to evangelicalism. It will minister to many brothers and sisters in my thinking, freeing them from unrealistic expectations of themselves and of others. They are freed not from abiding in the Word, nor from learning the Truth. But, they are freed from obligation to a perfect or even well-rounded understanding of it (their doctrine) as they are abiding in Him.

If I'm incorrect, I'm willing to change my mind as I learn more.

Raise the Banners

Those who looked on at Calvary scratched their heads.

For though He was crucified in weakness, yet He lives by the power of God (2 Cor. 13:4).

This is the gospel that Paul gave his life to defend. He preached "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be according to grace" (Rom 4:16), to both the lost and the saved (Gal. 5:5).

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving (Col. 2:6-7).

His one bitterness was with brethren who were in Christ but recanted their sufficient faith; a tragic irony (Gal. 5:11-12). But I'm sold out. I want my stake in the earth to look like this.

"The Christological Symbol (Brazen Serpent Sculpture), created by Italian artist, Giovanni Fantoni, stands atop Mount Nebo. It is symbolic of the bronze serpent created by Moses in the wilderness (Numbers 21:4-9) and the cross upon which Jesus was crucified (John 3:14)."

This is a picture of God's invitation to put on the offense of Christ.

It is the stone of stumbling for those wrestling with God's terms of faith alone (Rom. 9:33). It is the most powerful teaching in the world, because it proclaims our reality of life in God; righteousness is ours by faith in His Son and not from ourselves (1 Cor. 1:18). I forget to meditate on what "grace" really implies here and now in His Body. It implies that sinners can, without any merit, be imputed with Christ's righteousness.

If you, LORD, should mark iniquities,
O Lord, who could stand?
But there is forgiveness with You,
That You may be feared (Ps. 130:3-4).

At Calvary, evil was crucified (Heb. 10:14).

If we wave around the offense of Christ like a banner, we know that this world is struggling with believing it, and they quicken our sufferings. Their reproaches reflect a wrestling with God's grace. That's okay with me; if I no longer live, but Christ does, I "fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ" (Col. 1:24). And He told us this would happen (Phil. 1:29).

Secondary Separationism, Part 2

Where are the Scriptures which Teach This?

On pages 250-251 of his text, "Biblical Separation" [1], Dr. Pickering quotes several of his opponents to this teaching, those who admit for example, "The scriptures say nothing about secondary separationism," and, "There is no such thing as first-degree, second-degree separation, etc." Pickering acknowledges that secondary separationism is not labeled specifically as such, in the scriptures. But that's not the end of it: Pickering also has to justify his teaching past this confession that it is no where directly taught in scripture.

Pickering insists that the practice can be drawn as a valid principle from the following scripture:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.... And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 thess 3:6, 14).

Pickering acknowledges that in context the Thessalonian Christians were merely shirking their responsibilities and had become busybodies. He then immediately rationalizes upon this scripture, saying (on page 255): "The question is this: Is that all this passage teaches? Does the principle go beyond the specific situation evident at Thessalonica, and should it be applied in other situations as well?" He then moves right in to pointing out Paul had authority from God to teach the truth. And he points out that those idle brothers, in their disregard of Paul, were called "disorderly." Through this simple but poor connection, Pickering gives his readers the impression that 2 Thess. 3 is calling all those who reject Paul's written authority, those who are idle.

Rather, I ask you to take a look at this passage and see if it is not saying that those who Paul is calling "disorderly" are those practicing idleness. It is the demonstration of idleness, which Paul is commanding the Thessalonicans to take note of, and withhold their company from.

Pickering nevertheless insists that "Their improper actions resulted from their incorrect grasp of doctrine." Friends, this next unabridged paragraph (pg. 256-257) is where you are going to see the door open up for a moral kind of legalism in the practice of secondary separationism....

The main question among separatists is this: Does this portion of scripture apply only and exclusively to people who leave their work, sponge off other believers, and live idle lives that contribute to spiritual confusion? Certainly this is the context of the passage as it is written. Is it not true, however, that the principle clearly seen here applies to other situations? The principle is this: When our brethren do things that are wrong - caused by an incomplete knowledge of or deliberate disobedience to some teaching of Scripture - we should not merely continue to fellowship with them as those who have done nothing wrong.... It is the principle of maintaining a pure walk that should be stressed. It is the principle of refusing to condone, honor, or utilize those who continually and knowingly are following a course of action that is harmful to other believers and to the welfare of the churches.

Can he defend his interpretation with other scriptures? He had none others. Following this look into 2 Thess. 3, Pickering quotes the commentary of other respected fundamentalists who happen to agree about this interpretation from the text, and concludes, "We cite them, however, to show that there have been a host of men through the years who have believed that the practice of so-called secondary separation has Biblical support" (pg. 261).



[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

Secondary Separationism, Part 1

Secondary Separation: What is it?

In his book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" [1], Dr. Pickering explains the teaching of secondary separation. This is the position that maintains a man must not only separate from apostates. There is a second degree of separation one must take, by withdrawing from any fundamentalist who is known to cooperate in any way with apostates.

(Remember, in a previous post Pickering refuses to use the term "heretics" for those who err doctrinally; his word for those who teach doctrinal error is "apostates." Yes - in a future post we will look into this term categorizing those who are reckoned "apostate" according to Dr. Pickering... definitions are on the way soon!)

For illustration.... Imagine that you're a separationist. Though you may personally benefit from a relationship with an erring Christian, by affiliation you are not permitted to cooperate with or minister to such an erring (unrepentant) Christian.

But there's more. If you choose to invite your erring Christian, to, say for example give a speech on any range of other doctrines in which you are in agreement, you then become subject to separation yourself -- you will be separated from, by your fellow separationists. Separationists would invoke the second degree of separation, upon you.

A concise definition is on page 251:

Coined in the aftermath of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, the term "secondary separationist" refers to those who will not cooperate with apostates or with other evangelical believers who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them.

Pickering teaches why he believes secondary separation is necessary. In his book he explains how it is critical to maintain the purity of the truth through our times. To accomplish this, each one of us must take a clear stand against those who have become apostate. In addition, we must not keep company with those who do not also withdraw from apostates. If a teacher be apostate, the testimony of the truth is being attacked. How can we fellowship with those who are an enemy of truth? An apostate teacher may be a true believer. He may also be a gifted and many times accurate teacher; however he is nevertheless teaching some false doctrine. He may be well meaning. But we have to consider how he spreads untruths to the unsuspecting.

Pickering goes on to insist that those who are younger in the faith have no way of knowing for themselves whether what they have heard could be false, and they will assume it is true because of his position as a teacher. To permit a man to teach what is known to be error, implies to others that there is nothing wrong in him doing so, or at least not sufficiently serious enough to do anything about it.

Dr. Pickering has made a checklist to help his readers consider their personal responsibility to not only separate from apostates, but also from fundamentalists who will not keep their own fellowship pure from apostate teachers. I take this directly from his text, pages 276-277:

1 - Am I honoring God by my fellowship? "Whatever therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). When a believer remains in an apostate denomination, that believer is supporting the Lord's enemies through is or her money and presence. Is that believer honoring the Lord by "staying in"?

2 - Am I aiding or encouraging someone to continue a walk of disobedience? If a great preacher continues to remain within a group largely influenced by apostates and a separatist church has him speak, is this occasion helping or hindering others? Having them participate with us is not the way to assist them from the path of disobedience.

3 - Will my cooperation with a person or organization give the impression that I condone a lackadaisical attitude toward apostasy and compromise? Did not the writer of Proverbs say, "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil" (prov 8:13)? Is the support of apostasy, its publications, schools, spokesperson, and missions evil? If it is, do I as God's child truly hate it?

4 - Will others under my leadership or influence be tempted to further compromise or be confused or weakened in their testimony because of my actions? We cannot live to ourselves. We are responsible for our brothers and sisters as well.

5 - What long-range effects will cooperation have? As previously noted, Bob Jones Sr. often said, "Never sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."

[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

The Teaching of "Secondary Separation"; Introduction

I've taken note on a legalistic characteristic comprising a substantial portion of the free grace community both on and offline. Paul called the infusion of legalism in the Galatian region at that critical time in their history, being "thrown into confusion". Confusion does seem to abound for FG, does it not? At least it appears the case in their interrelationships.

This infusion may have drawn many to mere confusion. However, for those holding staunchly, where you discern the practices and affects of legalism, you will also find the doctrines fueling it (just as you would with any other schism), if you dig around a bit. With Pickering's text, I am persuaded to have found one centralized source of FG legalism (though there may be two). It was the landmark nature and widespread adoption of his text which makes it a central point of examination.

In particular I wish to draw attention to possibly the most controversial portion of Pickering's teachings on biblical separation: The Teaching of Secondary Separation. As I said in the last comment in the previous post, I have always learned and participated better when the controversial aspects were discussed at the front. I realize that it goes in backward order; starting with the man-made assertions and working back to scripture, and I apologize for the sense of alarm that it might generate. Regardless if the teaching is biblical, it is popular and widespread and for this reason alone I think it is important to investigate.

With all kinds of biblical commands that attend godliness, they can be taken too far. They may morph as far as their Spiritual essence is concerned, creating bondage in the stead of health.

Take the command for water baptism, as an example of how any command may be used for good (Spiritual) or harm (legalism).

I've seen obedience to the command to be baptized in water, be Spiritual in effect to those who obey it. My own church is one such place - praise God. But I've also been a part of other churches, and witnessed for myself how the command to be baptized is used as a subtle tool of slavery and judgment within, and damnation to those without. People are slowly harmed by legalistic theology. Soon falls a trend of members escaping, or burning-out of living for God. With the trend the need is born to express to one another the legalism present in the command - more - its legalistic emphasis within or behind the command. Books need to be written. It takes skill to explain how a command from scripture crosses the line from being healthy, to being harmful (legalistic). It takes discernment and a gift of teaching to expose for newcomers, the nuances where the command had become obsession in self merit as opposed to gratitude for the accomplishments of Christ. Those sorts of books have been written - in the case of refuting the baptism-based legalistic doctrines.

This dichotomic usage of the command to be baptized expresses a principle concerning all commands, including the teaching of biblical separation. Separation is taught in the scriptures and is meant for our benefit. The question to ask, however in my thinking, is this: How do you discern when it has crossed the line, promoting legalism? Would an investigator take heed and note when the feel-good, sounds-right, stops becoming "good" and stops becoming "right"? It will require the whole counsel of God, and an understanding of the essentials of legalism - what legalism is as a generality.

"Heresy:" Pickering & Swindoll

In times passed it has been a confidence-booster to read only the scriptures long before consulting man-made commentary. I've been reading just the scriptures used in Separationist philosophy for awhile now. Recently I posted at Dr. Lybrand's Free Grace blog a comment exploring what the Bible has to say in definition of "heresy." Click here to read that comment.

By publicly sharing my conviction, it made me feel the committment of it all. It has become time for me, at least, to visit other writings, and test how far off my concept is compared to the experts.

Pickering

Dr. Pickering's book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" was originally published in 1979. According to Kevin Mungons who wrote the Foreword to the Second Edition, Pickering had "come to write a book that became the standard defense of fundamentalist ideas" [1]. Before it, there was no established text on the subject.

The word "heresy" is addressed in Biblical Separation, but to my reading I have only found one page where it is mentioned. It says on page 191,

It should be carefully noted that heresy (using the term in the strict sense in which it is used in the New Testament) is not apostasy. The word "heresy" is used only in Titus 3:10 and refers to a selfish choice that results in party divisions within the church. It emphasizes carnal troublemaking, not theological error.

Interesting.

Pickering's idea of false teaching and preaching falls altogether into the category of -- "apostasy" -- not "heresy." I may publish some excerpts soon on the subject of "apostasy," for, to Pickering this is where we would take the popular question of "what constitutes heresy?"

Okay. Now off to visit Swindoll.

Swindoll

In 1990 Chuck Swindoll published a text called, "The Grace Awakening: Believing in Grace is One Thing; Living it is Another" Swindoll addresses what the word "heresy" means on pages 104-105: [2]

Legalists were disturbing others and distorting the truth as they spread doctrinal heresy. Their heretical message was that the Galatian Christians should let Moses finish what Christ began. ... We continue to hear that "different gospel" to this day and it is a lie. It is heresy. ... The problem is, it appeals to the flesh. Paul's twice repeated reaction to the one who introduced that doctrinal heresy is "Let him be accursed!" This is Paul's way of saying the person is doomed! The original word is anathema! It is the strongest single Greek term for condemnation. Nevertheless, the heresy goes on. Most every cult you could name is a cult of salvation by works. ... Please allow me to be straight with you: Stop tolerating the heretical gospel of works!

Both confirm the two variations of which I took note. In the case that readers have not read the original comment I made regarding "heresy," here were are two variations: One - the use of the word in doctrinal matters, designates legalism. Two - in non-doctrinal matters the word designates opposed camps of Christians attempting to be treated first. This would be opposed to Christ's teachings "For many who would seek to be first shall be last, and the last, first." It also is hypocritical to the practice which is under dispute in the context - The Lord's Supper - at which event Christ washed the feet of the disciples, setting an example for them to follow.

I do not observe further apparent liberty in using the word beyond those two variances. I should say, however, that the second variance may have many uses beyond the context's discussion of the Lord's Supper.

Summary

Can "heresy" mean what it is popularly said to mean?

Can it mean an invasion of untruths against any biblical doctrine?

I don't know what freedom there is to use the word in this generalized manner, since the scripture only uses it to reference the schismatic effect of the teachings of legalism. Legalism is so easy to fall back into. John Maisel, with all his incredible life-experience in church-planting, confirms this sort of disappointing phenomena in his FGA National Conference presentation. I can imagine why Paul wished to be rid of it, yet it kept creeping back in, even affecting Peter for awhile. If there is truly a "Christian's slippery slope," I imagine legalism would be a top contender for destructive things to keep one on constant lookout.

I am very interested to hear what others think "heresy" means in the scriptures.



[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.

[2] [2] Swindoll, Charles R. The Grace Awakening. Walker & Company, New York; 1990.

Matt 18 and Disfellowship

When I have read Matt 18 I fail to be convinced that "treating the brother as if they were a publican or heathen" means we therefore "ostracize" (banish, exile). How does the church intersect with, yet also separate from, the publicans and heathens (unbelievers)?

In our brother's case, being likened to the treatment of unbelievers is an illustration not only of sin, but also of unresolved disagreement.

Fellowship has to do with commonality. 2 cor 6:14-16 says:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.

We cannot serve two masters, and being tied to men who are without understanding from God is not profitable. Therefore we no longer do activities "in commonality," with one mind.

Yet the scriptures speak to the placement of light in regard to the darkness. Matt 5:14-16 says that the light is raised up for all to see:

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

In fact, Luke 8:16-18 (below) says that the light is placed in such a way so to hold other men responsible to listen, as if to the instructions of God. The sinning brother would have greater understanding if they would permit their offended brother to hold his hearing.

"No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him."

So I would conclude that in the case that "your brother sins against you," and the brother refuses to hear one, refuses to hear three and then refuses to receive even the entire church, they ought to be treated as if they were an unbeliever. We are not yoked to their resolvedly ignorant points of view. However we are there in the midst of their existence, showing them the way to reconciliation by faith again in Christ and to the church and to us as individuals. We woo them with our good deeds, so they might praise the Father and choose to be intimate.

I believe... that when Jesus was commanding us in Matt 18 to regard our non-listening brother as we would the heathens, Jesus was essentially saying that we would be empowered to be as light from God to that brother.

Do you find this disagreeable or uneducated?

What Makes Heresy?

In my perusings I found this article[1] which perhaps has some helpful ways of breaking down the elements and issues in identifying "heresy."

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 (5) 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.

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.

[1] A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy. Part Two: Guidelines For Doctrinal Discernment — Section 2 Page 4.

Heresy Isn't Neat & Simple?

More, from Apologetics Research and their article[1] on heresy:

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.

[1] A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy. Part Two: Guidelines For Doctrinal Discernment — Section 1 Page 4.

"The False Gospel Passages" 1 cor. 15

Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

1 Corinthians 14:34-15:20

The importance of the resurrection is clear, in explaining the truth, in the context of what saves us. The reason why it is important is because without it, there could have been no risen Christ to worship. More importantly, it would have made them liars when they preached.

What made them liars?

1) The alternate teaching, if correct, that in fact the dead do not rise; us or Christ.

2) To have been wrong at any one point in truth, would have made their message empty. It also would have made faith futile.

Next I experiment with a hypothetical....

Say an alternately important teaching was left out; that Jesus is the Messiah. If Jesus is preached as if he were not the Messiah but something other, could Paul have just as easily said to these teachers "But if Jesus were not the Messiah, he could not have been the prophecied One who died for all iniquity. And if He could not have died for your sins, you are still in your sins!"

The faith became futile when some exchanged the truth for a contradiction of it, and they preach the contradiction. These people are called "False witnesses" in verse fifteen, not "Un-witnesses," because they speak false things about Christ. They were never described here as being silent on the truth for a time or a purpose.

This is how this "gospel" is described:

A-received and in which they now stand
B-the means by which you are saved, on a condition:
C-that you hold fast to the teaching given
D-unless in the case that you never held fast to it

This book was written to believers so how could point D even have been mentioned, if we're talking about justification? The kind of "saved" discussed in B is a post-justification kind of salvation, the kind that comes from works, effort, holding fast, can be lost, etc. Therefore the teachings in C, those things passed from Jesus Christ to Paul, and Paul to his disciples in the Corinth church, are post-justification teachings.

Consider the context. See what the text says before this topic begins: chapter fourteen talks about the gift of tongues and prophecy in the church. As he concludes those regulations he reminds the Corinthians that the gift of prophecy does not originate with the people of Corinth themselves, but comes from God who wants us to remember His commands that regulate what is considered the truth. Then Paul immediately explains the truths in which we stand. It is a flow of reasoning he uses to compare the two issues: both require regulation to keep them able to perform their function. What is futile and empty in faith and preaching also can be true about tongues that are not spoken for the right reasons and in a right way during assemblies.

Summary:
Chapter fifteen's gospel, or good news, is a good news of further teachings for the body of those who already believe.

The common evangelical idea of the "saving content of the gospel" would begin to be described by them especially from this chapter! "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," his burial, and his resurrection. But why do they stop there, when Paul didn't? Without skipping a beat he says that Christ was seen by Cephas, and then by the twelve. Okay. Then he adds the apostles and then himself, not even pausing before taking a side-track of the issue of his unworthiness.

Is all of that "the saving content of the gospel?"

It doesn't seem to me it has any natural breaking point.

What kind of failure made the whole faith futile?

Was it silence, or leaving them without definition? No; it was not that these teachers were silent, for a time, about an aspect of the truth.

These chapters are teachings on how to regulate teachings and worship. "The gospel" meaning that which saves people to eternal life, is not mentioned at all in this chapter. Take a look once again; for no where is there any mention of faith in this list of teachings. "Holding fast to the word" isn't referring to faith, because holding fast to believing is the same as trying to judge whether a little bit of faith or a lot of faith is capable of making a man justified. As if we must muster around.

But we know that "the law is not of faith" (gal 3:12) and "now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe." rom 3:21-22

It is my conclusion for now that this passage cannot be applied to the "crossless, deityless" free grace gospel proponents. For nothing they preach is false, though their preaching may be stark in its silence on scripture.