I
recently examined a 563 page “Handbook of Today’s Religions” by Josh Mcdonald
and Don Stewart, published in 1983.
Under the heading of Orthodox Christianity is this statement: “For the last two thousand years, the
Christian Church has held certain beliefs to be vital to one’s faith. While there is some doctrinal disagreement
within the three branches of Christendom – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and
Protestant – there is a general agreement among them as to the essentials of
the faith. Whatever disagreement the
church may have among its branches, it is insignificant compared to the
heretical non-Christian beliefs of the cults.
We offer this section as a yardstick to compare the errant beliefs of
the cults.” (page 26). It may come
as a surprise for many to learn that these three branches lie within the
mainstream of Christian beliefs and practice.
By the way, there is not one word about these “branches” in the
Bible. Nevertheless, according to the
book, these are all a part of the great universal church (see pages
37-38). Again, there is no definition of
the church, either local or universal, in the Bible that fits this description . The writers tell us that the only real
heretics lie outside of these main groups.
Although these authors claim to embrace all of these groups, as a
student of religious history, I am not so naive as to think that all these broad
categories are dwelling together in UNITY or would even agree as to what
constitutes orthodox faith as defined in this book. It is also a fact that many of the basic
principles of humanism, Marxism and Socialism, described clearly as cults in
this book, have penetrated and influenced greatly these three branches. This in principle is no different than the
falling away of New Testament churches as they were influenced and penetrated
by false teachers and heretics (see Acts 20:29-30; 2 Cor. 11:3-4, 13-20; 2 Thess. 2:7-12; 2 Peter
2; Rev. 2-3). So this clear distinction
between what is called “Orthodox Christianiy” and the “Cults” does not hold
water.
The
authors proceed to go into the details of what constitutes “Orthodox
Beliefs”. The book defines orthodox as
“adhering to established beliefs and practices, especially religious ones. From a Christian perspective, an accurate
adherence to biblical truth and worship” (page 552). They set forth the proposition that all three
of these “branches” agree upon Christian
orthodox truths, including the fact that the authority of God comes from the 66
books of the Bible. Of course, two of
those “branches” recognize other books as inspired as well. Also never mind that the Catholic church
recognizes other sources of authority which include “the traditions of the church”, “the voice of
the Pope” and the apocryphal or books of doubtful authority. But none of this really matters. To establish this, the book quotes 2 Timothy
3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21; Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18-19. Good passages indeed, but this totally
ignores the fact that there are great fundamental differences between all of
these “branches”, including such specifics as rejecting the Bible teaching of
divine inspiration, having broad differences on fundamental things like church organization,
homosexuality, women pastors, whether or not the Bible is real history, the
teaching of theistic evolution, the function and purpose of the church and a
very long list of rather substantial subjects.
Under the book’s basic definitions of what constitutes a heretic, many
of the churches and teachers found in these three branches surely fit the
description.
Modern
denominationalism is increasingly defined by this “big tent” monstrosity, which
is ever changing and splitting into hundreds of different factions. This is not exactly what Jesus prayed for in
John 17:20-21. The only real solution is
to get back to the basics of the word of God.
Paul warned Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled,
they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own
desires, and will turn away
their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:2-4).
The
authors state again and again that man is saved by grace only through faith only as
a tenant of the faith, which they quote from various creed books, and anyone who denies this is a surely a heretic. In the very back of the book is set forth the
“Four Spiritual Laws” leading to conversion. The last law teaches how to
receive Christ as your personal savior and experience the “new birth.” As to this law, which the authors imply to
be God’s law (or why teach it?), there are included many details, even the
necessity of repentance. However, there
is not one mention of “baptism”,
although such is included in all the accounts of conversions recorded in the
book of Acts (see Acts 2:36-38, 41; 8:12, 34-38; 10:47-48; 16:14-15, 30-33;
18:8; 22:16). God’s record of how to be
saved states clearly the fact and purpose of water baptism. Does that make Luke, the author of Acts, a
heretic? Does this omission constitute some
“brainwashing” by the authors which they condemn when practiced by the Cults?
When
the book describes various cults, it clearly states that one characteristic of
a cult is the teaching that one must be baptized for the remission of
sins. In condemning the World Wide
Church of God, which I also condemn, the book states that they teach that “salvation is a process beginning in this
life and culminating in the resurrection.
Salvation consists of repentance, faith and water baptism. . . .
According to Armstrong a person must be baptized in order to be saved. . . ‘God
commands water baptism; and for one who is able to either defy the command and
refuse, or neglect. . . certainly would be an act of disobedience which would
impose the penalty of sin and cause loss of salvation’.” (page 118). I would not use the words of Armstrong , but I
would simply state it in the words of Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16) or
in the words of Peter, “repent and be
baptized for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:37). However, the authors of this book believe that such
teaching is heretical.
Don’t
get me wrong. I also reject the cults
that are named in this book about world religions, and do agree that the most
basic problem is a failure to believe and apply the principles of Biblical
authority. Over all, the book is very
useful and informative as to various cults.
They do a good job in exposing the radical views of the cults. But the
authors need to realize that many of the arguments used against the cults can
be applied to the mainline churches as well.
To fail to do this would be like Isaiah the prophet condemning the
pagans around Israel, but failing to condemn Israel itself for their great
sins. Isaiah calls upon Israel to repent
and did not soft soap any of their sins.
The divisions and teachings of these mainline churches is one of the principle
reasons the cults have been so effective.
To teach that one can be saved by grace only through faith only and that
it is not necessary to obey Christ in order to be saved is a hole that even a
big Mack truck can drive through. So it
is no wonder that these cults take advantage of this discrepancy to create
doubt and then proceed to influence people with their particular brand of
indoctrination. Also the divisions of
organized religions, with their multiple creeds and sectarian bias, give plenty
of ammunition to the atheists as well. How
anyone can sugar coat all of this is beyond my power to understand. The only answer to any heresy, and the Bible
does talk much about heresy and false teaching, is the knowledge of the Bible
itself. As to this knowledge,
Christendom as a whole is truly lacking.
But any honest reading of the scriptures leads one to understand that
there have always been problems along that line even in the days of the
apostles.
I have been discussing here the problem of who is a heretic. This is connected with the problem of false
teachers. Both problems are discussed
in the Bible. As to a heretic, this is
mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1: “But false
prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers
among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the
Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth
will be maligned;” Also consider
this passage: “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and
disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a
first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned..” (Tit. 3:9-11). In the context,
controversies relating to the law had to do with those who wanted to impose
Judaism upon Christians. This matter was
settled in Acts 15. Heresy has to do
with a “party spirit” built around a particular person or opinion producing
division, rather than that which is built upon Christ resulting in unity. (see also 1 Cor. 1:10-17). False teachers are those who undermine the
authority of Jesus Christ by teaching things contrary to sound doctrine. But if one is teaching only what is clearly
set forth in the Bible, and the Bible only, that person is not a heretic.
According to many of the human creeds used by most mainline protestant
churches, the doctrine of salvation by grace only through faith only is a most
wholesome doctrine and full of comfort.
Salvation requires no action on the part of man whatsoever. However, this is not taught in the Bible. It turns out to be deceptive and not full of
comfort at all. The Bible simply states
that we are saved by grace through faith.
The word “only” is not in the text but is added by man. One main passage used to teach this is found
in Ephesians 2:8 which states, “For by
grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the
gift of God;” If we are saved by grace alone then nothing
else is required. This would result in
universal salvation. But grace has a
condition and that condition is faith.
Faith is the access to grace, for
“
. . without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to
God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek
Him” (Hebrews 11:6). I might add
that the only time the Bible speaks of faith only, it denies that faith only
can save. Faith must be active or else
it is useless. James expresses it this
way, What use is it, my
brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save
him? If a brother or
sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them,
"Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them
what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no
works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me
your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You
do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to
recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? (James
2:14-20).
Dear reader, thank you for reading this article. God has graciously given us the Bible by
means of the Holy Spirit. This is God’s
gift to us. Go to the word of God for
all religious belief and practice.
I am not angry with those people who actually believe that one is a heretic
by simply believing and teaching what the Bible says. In fact, I talk to such people all the time
and am willing to reason with them as to what the Bible teaches. I strive to always do this in a spirit of
gentleness and humility and in the fear of God. How else can we serve Jesus Christ?
This also applies to the “Cults” mentioned in the book.
In the next issue of Pitching For The Master, I will address the Bible teaching of
“Salvation by Grace through Faith”.
I do recommend a booklet titled, “Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up”
by David W. Bercot. You can access this
book at www.scrollpublishing.com.
I like this
particular comment on Bill O’Reilly’s book “Killing Jesus” (which was the
subject of my last article) by David Smitherman. He wrote:
“A lot of interest lately in the death of Jesus due to the
Bill O’Reilly book and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. What follows is just
letting the scriptures tell us what the attitude was of both Jewish rulers and
Jewish people and what it led to. . . . None of this should be used as an
excuse for anti-Semitic attitudes and mistreatment of Jews today for what their
ancestors did 2,000 years ago. Nothing can excuse such things. It’s simply a matter of looking at an
historical event, and the only truly reliable documents which record that
incident, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Whenever political correctness means more to us than scriptural correctness, the Bible ceases to have any meaning at all. Its meaning will change with whatever the latest popular whim is, history will be rewritten and the concept of ultimate, objective truth will no longer exist”.
Whenever political correctness means more to us than scriptural correctness, the Bible ceases to have any meaning at all. Its meaning will change with whatever the latest popular whim is, history will be rewritten and the concept of ultimate, objective truth will no longer exist”.
--- Lindy
McDaniel, December 11, 2-13
0 comments:
Post a Comment