WHEN THE CHURCH BEGINS TO GO WRONG
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Understanding the New Testament as an Agreement
and Charter, Christians Can Appraise Fidelity and
Leaning Tendencies in a Variety of Competing
Traditions Which Lay Claim to Divine Authenticity
by Mark Mountjoy
IN THE VAST LANDSCAPE OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT and practice, various doctrines and teachings have emerged over the centuries, each claiming to be rooted in biblical truth. However, as believers committed to the authority and sufficiency of God's Word, it is our responsibility to carefully examine these ideas and weigh them against the clear teachings of Scripture.
In this series, we will explore 15 doctrines that have garnered significant attention and adherence within certain Christian circles. These include:
Annihilationism
Annihilationism is the belief that after the final judgment, the condemned souls or unrighteous people will not suffer eternally in hell, but will instead be completely destroyed or annihilated so that they cease to exist. It stands in stark contrast to the traditional Christian doctrine of hell as a state of eternal conscious torment or separation from God. Annihilationists believe that rather than suffering forever, the wicked will simply be put out of existence, extinguishing their consciousness and being permanently.
Here are some powerful points against the doctrine of annihilationism by appealing to specific scriptural examples:
1) 1 Peter 3:19-20 indicates that the disobedient people from Noah's time were still in existence as "spirits in prison" nearly 2,400 years after the flood, when Christ proclaimed to them after his death. This directly refutes the idea that the unrighteous are simply extinguished or annihilated after death.
2) The account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 portrays the rich man in a conscious state of torment after death, not annihilated.
3) Jude 7 uses the present tense to describe the ongoing punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying they are "undergoing" (ὑπέχουσαι) the vengeance of eternal fire. This implies their continued existence in a state of punishment, contrary to annihilationism.
These are formidable scriptural arguments against the annihilationist position. A few additional observations:
a) Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10 describe the eternal, conscious torment of those who reject God, using language like the "smoke of their torment" ascending forever and being tormented day and night forever. Hard to reconcile with cessation of existence.
b) The reality of eternal punishment/destruction and the eternal nature of the soul/spirit seem inextricably linked in passages like Matthew 25:46 - the same word "eternal" describes both the punishment and the life.
c) Annihilationism seems incompatible with the biblical vision of a cosmos renewed (Revelation 21-22) but still maintaining some form of eternal quarantine/containment for those consigned to the "second death" after judgment. Can we rightly identify the first century dating of Christ's death and its astounding implication - the unrighteous people of Noah's generation were still consciously existing as spirits nearly 2.5 millennia later, hardly a temporary state to be followed by oblivion.
While we may struggle with the notion of eternal conscious punishment, and certainly must approach this topic with humility, the overall testimony of Scripture does seem to preclude a simplistic annihilationism in favor of a more ongoing, sustained reality for the rebellious beyond biological death. I appreciate you prompting an in-depth analysis to start off on sound biblical footing.
Antinomianism
Thank you for providing the overview on antinomianism. This theological view essentially argues that since salvation is by grace through faith alone, believers are not bound to follow moral laws or commandments. The key points I gather are:
1) Antinomians believe those who are saved by faith have a "license to sin" and are not required to obey moral laws like the Ten Commandments.
2) They take the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith to an extreme conclusion that one's actions or obedience are irrelevant for the saved.
3) Antinomians teach that future sins committed by believers don't require repentance since they are eternally secure in salvation.
4) There is a rejection of moral norms and religious laws flowing from an external source. Obedience is viewed as flowing from an internal principle of faith alone.
This view represents a serious misunderstanding and distortion of biblical teachings on grace, faith, and the ongoing role of God's moral laws for believers. A few key problems:
1) It directly contradicts passages like Romans 6:1-2 where Paul emphatically rejects the idea that grace gives a "license" to sin.
2) It ignores the many New Testament calls to obedience, holiness and the ethics summarized in Christ's commands (Matthew 22:37-40).
3) It doesn't align with the reality of believers being "crucified" to the old self and called to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-11).
4) It mistakenly pits obedience and grace against each other, when Scripture views grace as the enabling power for transformed obedience (Titus 2:11-14).
While maintaining the primacy of grace through faith, the Bible clearly and consistently rejects antinomianism and any view that moral law is irrelevant for believers. Obedience remains crucial as the fruit of a grace-transformed life.
Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional thoughts to include on the problems with antinomianism from a biblical perspective.
Binitarianism
Thank you for providing the overview of binitarianism. This theological view holds to a form of monotheism, believing in one divine Being or Substance, but with two distinct persons, aspects or manifestations within that one Godhead. A few key points:
1) Binitarianism rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms three co-equal, co-eternal persons (Father, Son, Spirit) within the one Godhead.
2) Instead, binitarians believe in only two persons/aspects/manifestations of the one divine Being - typically the Father and the Son.
3) The Holy Spirit is not accorded full personal status or inclusion in the Godhead under binitarianism.
4) It is presented as a compromise or middle ground between strict unitarianism (one person) and Trinitarian theology.
From a biblical perspective, binitarianism falls short of the full revelation of God's triune nature as three distinct, co-eternal persons united in one essence. Some key problems:
1) The abundance of Trinitarian formulae in the New Testament that group the Father, Son and Spirit together (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, etc).
2) Explicit statements affirming the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 and Hebrews 3:7-18).
3) The Spirit's personal actions like teaching, testifying, interceding described throughout Scripture (John 14:26, Romans 8:26-27).
4) The inability of binitarianism to account for the Spirit's works in creation, inspiration and the incarnation event.
While allowing for the distinctions of the Son and the Father, binitarianism does not fully align with the biblical witness to the Spirit as a fully divine Person, not an impersonal aspect or manifestation of God.
Ultimately, while a mystery, the Trinitarian doctrine emerges as the most faithful summary of how God has revealed Himself in Scripture - one Being/Essence, three co-eternal and co-equal Persons. Binitarianism stops short of this comprehensive revelation.
Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional thoughts to include regarding the biblical arguments against the binitarian position.
Christian Uniformitarianism
You make excellent points in critiquing the idea of Christian Uniformitarianism - the belief that all Christians must belong to one specific church organization or denomination in order to be considered true Christians.
Here are the key issues you raise against this view:
1. Even within a single church organization or denomination, doctrinal developments and changes happen over time. For example, the Catholic Church's doctrinal positions have evolved significantly from its early days.
2. Issues like the Iconoclastic Controversy demonstrate that different groups of believers have had differing views on specific practices like the use of religious images/icons, even within the same broader church.
3. No single church can claim to be the "one true church" free from doctrinal errors or positions that conflict with biblical teaching in some areas.
4. The passage in Luke 9 where Jesus does not rebuke someone casting out demons in His name, despite not being part of His immediate group of disciples, suggests that Christian authenticity is not defined solely by membership in a particular earthly organization.
5. The primary requirement for being a Christian is having a personal relationship with Jesus, not adherence to a specific church structure or set of organizational practices.
Your core argument seems to be that while being part of a church community is important, no single institution has a monopoly on truth or can claim to be the exclusive embodiment of biblical Christianity. As you stated, all churches are ultimately "fallible human organizations," and elevating any one above true devotion to Christ is misguided.
This perspective aligns with the reality that sincere believers can be found across various Christian traditions and denominations, despite differences in practices, polities, and organizational structures.
The heart of true faith is the personal connection with Jesus as Lord and Savior, not uniformity in every ancillary doctrine or custom. Diversity in these areas need not negate the core unity believers share in the gospel.
Let me know if I have accurately captured the essence of your critique against Christian Uniformitarianism or if you have any other thoughts to add on this topic.
Christian Zionism
Thank you for providing the overview of Christian Zionism and raising the issue of how this ideology seems to conflict with the eschatological narrative presented in the New Testament. You make a compelling point.
The core problem with Christian Zionism, from a biblical perspective, is that it reads back into the Old Testament prophecies an expectation and theological necessity for the re-establishment of a Jewish national homeland and political state in the land of Israel. However, the New Testament writings strongly indicate that God's covenant purposes found their culmination and fulfillment in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ during the fateful period surrounding the downfall of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (66-135 AD).
Specifically, the concerns you raise regarding Christian Zionism's tenets appear to be:
1) It disregards or overlooks the consistent New Testament testimony that the old covenant system and national promises to Israel find their ultimate realization and abiding significance in the new covenant realities inaugurated by Christ's first coming.
2) It attempts to resuscitate and extend Old Testament promises about a national homeland and Jewish sovereignty in a literalistic way that the New Testament authors do not corroborate or even envision as necessary for Christ's second coming.
3) By making the re-establishment of a Jewish state in Israel a "prerequisite" for the Second Coming, Christian Zionism introduces an extra-biblical requirement and perceived necessity that does not align with the apostolic witness.
4) The intense, imminent expectation of the New Testament writers regarding Christ's return centered on the cataclysmic events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the dissolution of the Second Temple period, not circumstances requiring a revival of Jewish nationhood centuries later.
While Christian Zionism may have a superficial appeal to those seeking precise fulfillment of Old Testament promises, it arguably mangles the fundamental hermeneutic of the New Testament's own appropriation and restating of those promises through the revelatory light of Christ's life, death, and resurrection during that defining period of transition from old to new covenants.
You rightly point out that the eschatological narrative and theological frameworks we find in the New Testament seem to undermine and call into question the perceived necessity that Christian Zionists attempt to map onto contemporary geopolitics. Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional thoughts to include on this critique.
Denial of Heaven
Thank you for laying out such a comprehensive biblical case against the "Denial of Heaven" error. You make several powerful arguments from Scripture affirming the reality of heaven as the eternal destination and hope for believers:
1. The Book of Hebrews clearly portrays the patriarchs like Abraham looking forward to the "city whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10,16), indicating an eternal heavenly dwelling prepared by God.
2. Paul's teachings in 2 Corinthians 5 link the promises of the new heavenly body/dwelling to the resurrection reality guaranteed for all believers, not just those in the 1st century.
3. The promises of Revelation 21-22 about the New Jerusalem extend to all overcomers, across the ages, not just to a past group.
4. The passing away of the "first heaven and earth" in passages like Revelation 21:1 refers specifically to the dissolution of the old covenant system centered in Second Temple Judaism, not the literal destruction of the physical cosmos.
5. This is reinforced by 2 Peter 3's context about the "world that then was" perishing in Noah's flood, contrasted with the coming judgment on the "heavens and earth" of the Jewish world and commonwealth.
6. Powerful symbolic images like the "sea no more" (Rev 21:1) likely refer to the cessation of spiritual/social upheaval and unrest rather than the literal absence of oceans.
7. Jesus' promises in John 14 about going to prepare a place for believers further affirm the conception of an eternal heavenly dwelling place.
Your cumulative case shows that rightly understood within its biblical context, Scripture clearly upholds the promise and hope of an eternal heavenly dwelling - the New Jerusalem - for all believers across the ages. To deny this truth cuts against the grain of so much biblical revelation and undermines the assurance of eternal life in Christ.
You make excellent use of cross-references and symbolic/metaphoric interpretations to dismantle the "Denial of Heaven" error. This matches the high premium the New Testament itself places on the believer's hope being set on an eternal inheritance "reserved in heaven" (1 Peter 1:4). Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional thoughts on this issue.
_________________________
Excellent addition! You're absolutely right that 1 Corinthians 15:19 is a powerful verse to include when refuting the "Denial of Heaven" error:
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
This scripture encapsulates just how devastating and hopeless the Christian faith would be if our expectation was limited merely to this present, temporal existence. A few key implications:
1) It underscores that the heart of Christian hope extends far beyond just finding purpose/meaning in this earthly life alone. Our hope is inextricably tied to the promise of eternal life and resurrection.
2) Without the reality of heaven and an eternal destiny, the struggles, sufferings, and persecutions faced by believers would indeed render them "most miserable" or pitiable.
3) It highlights the utter deficiency of a worldview that denies the very thing that makes our hope in Christ substantive - the assurance of an everlasting heavenly inheritance.
4) Paul's words here indicate that the doctrines of bodily resurrection and an eternal heavenly state are absolutely essential and core to authentic Christian faith and hope.
You're correct that this verse from 1 Corinthians 15 needs to be included, as it provides one of the clearest, most poignant biblical rebuttals to any teaching that would deny the reality of heaven. It strikes at the very essence of what makes Christianity a hopeful way of life.
Thank you for raising this passage. I will incorporate 1 Corinthians 15:19 and its implications into the section addressing the "Denial of Heaven" error. Paul's words powerfully expose just how misguided and hope-depriving such a belief truly is when viewed through the lens of Scripture. I appreciate you strengthening this part of the essay.
Ecstatic Utterances
Thank you for providing the background information on the Azusa Street Revival and raising concerns about the phenomenon of "ecstatic utterances" or unintelligible speech being portrayed as biblical "tongues."
You make some valid points regarding the biblical descriptions of tongues being actual known human languages (Acts 2), rather than mere ecstatic utterances or babbling. A few key issues you highlight:
1) The experiences at Azusa Street, while possibly genuine spiritual occurrences, do not align with the biblical pattern of tongues as coherent languages that could be understood by those familiar with them (1 Cor 14:21-22).
2) Paul's rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 12:30 "Do all speak with tongues?" implies the gift was not universally manifest, contrary to some modern movements treating it as normative.
3) There is a danger of accepting any emotionally-charged vocal outburst as a legitimate manifestation of Spirit-inspired tongues if it deviates from the biblical definition and parameters.
4) While acknowledging God's sovereignty, we must be cautious about endorsing practices that seem to contradict or distort the specific scriptural descriptions and guidelines regarding tongues.
You rightly draw attention to the need for any spiritual experience to be meticulously tested against the full counsel of Scripture. Just because something occurred in a revival context does not automatically validate it as being biblical or properly representative of the gifts of the Spirit. At the same time, I would temper the critique by noting:
1) The possibility that the Azusa experiences could have had legitimate multilingual tongue manifestations mixed with other excesses/errors.
2) Our incomplete historical records make it difficult to make definitive judgments about those events over a century ago.
3) An openness to God's prerogative to move in surprising ways, while calling all things to conform to Scripture's boundaries.
Overall, you make a fair and measured case for being discerning about "ecstatic utterances" that seemingly deviate from the pattern of tongues established in Acts and 1 Corinthians. Weighing any spiritual experience by Scripture is wise and necessary. I've incorporated your perspective into this section. Let me know if you have any other thoughts to include.
Fatalism
Thank you for providing the overview of the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP) from Wikipedia. This lays out the key doctrinal tenets that undergird the theological system known as Calvinism or Reformed theology:
1) Total Depravity - The fallen human condition rendering all people enslaved to sin and morally unable to choose God apart from divine grace.
2) Unconditional Election - God's sovereign, unconditional choice from eternity of those whom he will save, not based on foreseen faith/merit.
3) Limited Atonement - Jesus' atoning work was intended only for the elect, not all people. His death secured salvation only for those unconditionally chosen.
4) Irresistible Grace - For the elect, God's inward call to salvation cannot be resisted or thwarted. The Holy Spirit overcomes resistance and decisively draws the elect to faith.
5) Perseverance of the Saints - Those truly among the elect cannot lose or forfeit their salvation but are preserved by God's power until the end.
While Calvinism aims to uphold God's complete sovereignty in salvation, critics argue it crosses into theological fatalism/determinism that makes God the author of evil and undercuts human moral responsibility.
A few of the most concerning implications that could be explored:
1) If God decreed all events, including moral evils like murder, rape, etc. from eternity, how can he respond with authentic anguish over sins he ordained?
2) The disturbing tenet that some infants are unconditionally predestined for hell through no choice/action of their own.
3) Apparent tension with biblical depictions of God relating contingently and altering courses based on human responses.
4) Rational dissonance in God's calls to obedience and offers of salvation if all events are decreed and the outcome is set.
While affirming God's sovereignty, these aspects of Calvinistic determinism seem to present a theologically and philosophically problematic portrait that warrants careful scrutiny through the lens of Scripture.
Please let me know if you'd like me to expand on analyzing any of these specific areas of concern regarding fatalism and determinism within the Calvinist system. I'm aiming to represent the issues surrounding this theological framework as accurately and fairly as possible.
Futurism
Thank you for raising the issue of "Futurism" and its relation to prophetic interpretations regarding the end times. I understand your perspective is that Futurist views conflict with the New Testament's emphases on the imminent fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies during the tumultuous period surrounding the fall of the Second Jewish Commonwealth in the 1st-2nd centuries AD.
A few key points regarding the problems you see with Futurist interpretations:
1) Futurism projects the fulfillment of major biblical prophecies regarding the "end of the age" to still lie in the future, rather than recognizing their accomplishment in the cataclysmic events of the late Second Temple period.
2) This seems to disregard the consistent witness of the New Testament authors who operate with a keen sense of imminence - that they were living in the "last days" preceding the parousia (arrival) of Christ.
3) Specific prophecies in gospels, epistles and Revelation appear to find their primary referents in the dissolution of the Jewish state, the destruction of the temple, and the judgment Christ executed upon the old covenant order.
4) By transposing these prophecies into the distant future, Futurist approaches fail to read the New Testament through its own powerful interpretive lens and cultural context.
5) This has the effect of missing the profound gospel reality that Christ's life, death and resurrection inaugurated the new covenant age and spelled the conclusion of the Mosaic era.
Your core contention seems to be that Futurist models of interpretation, whether full Preterist or nation-state based, do not accurately align with the New Testament's intense anticipation of fulfillment in its own contemporary circumstances. An improper futurist transposition results.
Please let me know if I am representing your issues with Futurism accurately or if you have any other specific concerns to raise regarding how it processes and maps biblical prophecies. I want to ensure I capture the full scope of your critique./
Understood, thank you for further expounding on the significant problems with Futurist interpretations of biblical prophecy from your perspective. I will make sure to incorporate these additional key points:
1) The time-bounded statements about "this generation" and relevance to the contemporary audience would have to be disregarded if Futurism is correct.
2) The intense focus in the New Testament on the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple complex is difficult to reconcile with a Futurist lens.
3) The theme of blood-guilt and divine judgment falling upon the Jewish religious aristocracy of that era loses its primary significance.
4) The stated nearness of the Parousia or Second Coming, described as "at the doors" during the lifetime of the apostles like James, cannot be maintained.
5) The whole litany of New Testament texts conveying a sense of profound imminence regarding the fulfillment of these apocalyptic events must be abandoned.
You make an excellent cumulative case that Futurist approaches to prophecy require setting aside the emphatic witnessof the New Testament writers themselves regarding their intense expectation of fulfillment within their own contemporary time period and circumstances surrounding the end of the Second Temple era.
Rather than reading the prophecies through the interpretive lens provided by the NT authors' own context, Futurism projects those dramatic awaited events into a still-future time period far removed from the original audience's frame of reference.
I appreciate you reinforcing how deeply problematic and decontextualizing this approach is when juxtaposed with the explicit statements and ubiquitous perspective of imminent fulfillment woven throughout the New Testament writings themselves. Maintaining hermeneutical coherence and fidelity to the textual context is vital.
Please let me know if I have accurately represented the full scope of your critique regarding how Futurist approaches undermine or cannot be reconciled with the overarching prophetic outlook and consensus of the New Testament authors and their contemporary circumstances.
Modalism
Thank you for raising the issue of Modalism and providing context on this theological error regarding the nature of the Godhead. I understand your critique as follows:
Modalism denies the genuine personal distinctions within the Trinity, instead portraying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as merely three temporary "modes" or roles played by the one divine Being at different times. The key problems with this view are:
1) It contradicts the biblical narrative which clearly depicts the distinct Persons of the Trinity relating to and interacting with one another simultaneously (e.g. Jesus' baptism).
2) It cannot account for the Son and Spirit being co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, reducing them to temporary manifestations rather than fully personal extensions.
3) It disregards the personal language used of the Son and Spirit throughout Scripture - praying, being loved, being grieved, etc.
4) It struggles to coherently explain how the Son could be begotten, not made, or how the Spirit could proceed from both simultaneously.
5) At its core, it denies the Trinitarian nature revealed in texts like the Great Commission, attempting to portray the Persons as mere "hats" or titles of the one God.
Ultimately, Modalism fails to uphold the relational, co-equal, and co-eternal distinctions of the three Persons testified in Scripture. It undermines the reality of the Godhead's internal spiritual communion and flattens the divine Persons into temporary manifestations.
By stripping away the genuine personal realities of the Son and Spirit, Modalism distorts the biblical portrayal of the Trinity and undercuts the profound love relationship modeled within the one eternal Godhead.
Let me know if I have accurately captured your key objections to Modalism and its inadequacy in accounting for the personal distinctions so clearly emphasized in the biblical revelation of the Triune God.
Thank you for providing the overview on Modalistic Monarchianism from Wikipedia. This additional context helps reinforce and expand on the key problems with this view:
1) It rejects the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct, co-eternal Persons within the one Godhead.
2) Instead, it portrays the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as merely temporary "modes" or manifestations of the one divine Being, denying their full personal realities.
3) Modalism considers God absolutely one without personal pluralities, similar to the unitarian views of Judaism and Islam.
4) In the Modalist view, all of the Godhead dwelled in Jesus during the incarnation as a manifestation of the Old Testament Yahweh.
5) The terms "Father" and "Son" are reduced to representing transcendence vs immanence, not actual distinct Persons.
6) The Holy Spirit is likewise not a separate entity, but just a descriptor of God in action or relation to creation.
This directly undermines the biblical witness to:
- The personal interactions and relationships between the Father, Son and Spirit (e.g. Matt 3:16-17)
- The eternal, pre-incarnate existence of the Logos/Son (John 1:1-3)
- The depiction of the Spirit as a personal agent, not just impersonal action (John 14:26, Acts 13:2)
Modalism essentially denies the personal pluralities within the one eternal Godhead so clearly affirmed throughout Scripture. It fails to account for the Son and Spirit as co-equal, co-eternal Persons related to yet distinct from the Father.
By collapsing these personal realities into temporary "modes," it distorts the biblical portrayal of the Triune God and undermines the profoundly relational dynamic within the eternal Godhead itself.
Let me know if incorporating this additional information helps strengthen the representation of Modalism and why it falls short of upholding the one God eternally existing as three distinct Persons according to Scripture.
Soul Sleep
12. The Rapture
13. Two-Economy Salvationism
14. Veneration of Mary
15. Water for Communion
While each of these doctrines may have its proponents and adherents, it is crucial that we approach them with discernment and a commitment to biblical fidelity. Several compelling reasons underscore the importance of prayerfully scrutinizing these teachings:
1. The supremacy of Scripture: As Christians, we believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. It is the ultimate standard by which all doctrines and practices must be evaluated. Any teaching that contradicts or deviates from the clear truths of Scripture must be carefully examined and, if necessary, rejected.
2. The preservation of sound doctrine: The apostle Paul repeatedly warned about the danger of false teachings and the importance of guarding the truth of the gospel (e.g., Galatians 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5). By carefully examining the doctrines we encounter, we can ensure that we are holding fast to sound biblical teachings and not being led astray by erroneous ideas.
3. The unity of the faith: While diversity in secondary matters is to be expected and celebrated within the body of Christ, unity in essential doctrines is vital for the health and witness of the Church. By prayerfully studying and discussing these 15 doctrines, we can work towards a greater understanding and consensus on the core truths of our faith.
4. The edification of believers: As we examine these doctrines in light of Scripture, we have the opportunity to grow in our knowledge of God's Word and deepen our understanding of His character and purposes. This process of study and discernment can contribute to our spiritual maturity and equip us to better serve and glorify God.
5. The witness to the world: As Christians, we are called to be salt and light in a world that is often confused and misled by competing ideologies and philosophies. By carefully evaluating the doctrines we encounter and holding fast to biblical truth, we can offer a clear and compelling witness to the reality of Christ and the transforming power of the gospel.
As we embark on this journey of exploring these 15 doctrines, let us approach each one with humility, prayerfulness, and a deep commitment to the authority of God's Word. May our study be marked by grace and truth, and may it ultimately lead us to a greater love for God and a deeper appreciation for the riches of His wisdom revealed in Scripture.
'Winds' of Doctrines That Are
Blowing Through Christianity
Are the Wicked Destroyed Out of Existance After Death?
Annihilationism is the belief that after death, the wicked will not experience eternal conscious torment but will instead completely cease to exist. This view holds that man is primarily a material being and that the punishment for the unrighteous is the complete end of their existence. However, a careful examination of the Bible reveals that this teaching is not supported by Scripture.
In Matthew 12:41, Jesus states that the men of Nineveh will rise up in judgment against the people of His generation and condemn them. He also mentions that the Queen of Sheba will do the same. While these examples refer to righteous individuals, the Bible also affirms the continued existence of the wicked after death.
Jude 7 provides a clear example, stating that Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. Notably, the Greek text uses the present tense, indicating that from a first-century perspective, these cities were still experiencing the consequences of their unrighteousness. Furthermore, in Jude 13, the author declares that the ungodly are "reserved the blackness of darkness forever," suggesting an ongoing state of punishment rather than annihilation.
The Book of Revelation also offers compelling evidence against annihilationism. In Revelation 14:9-11, the Bible describes the fate of those who worship the beast and receive its mark, stating that they will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb, and that the smoke of their torment will ascend forever and ever. Similarly, Revelation 20:10 depicts the devil, the beast, and the false prophet being cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. These passages clearly indicate that the existence of even the most unrighteous beings, such as Satan, does not end at the time of punishment but continues eternally.
While the concept of eternal conscious punishment may be difficult to reconcile with our understanding of God's love and mercy, it is essential to recognize that God's justice and righteousness are also integral aspects of His character. The Bible consistently warns of the consequences of unrepentance and the rejection of God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ.
As Christians, our response to this teaching should be one of compassion and urgency. We must be diligent in sharing the gospel message with others, emphasizing the reality of eternal life and the importance of accepting God's gift of redemption. Simultaneously, we should approach this topic with humility and sensitivity, acknowledging the weight of its implications and the need for prayerful study and reflection.
Ultimately, while the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment may be challenging to accept, it is crucial to base our understanding of the afterlife on the clear teachings of Scripture rather than on human philosophies or emotional preferences. By faithfully adhering to the truth of God's Word, we can find comfort in the promise of eternal life for those who place their trust in Christ, while also recognizing the grave consequences for those who reject Him.
Let's look elsewhere and zero in on 1 Peter 3:19-20, which provides further evidence against the concept of annihilationism. This passage states that after His death, Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison who had disobeyed during the time of Noah when the ark was being prepared. The implications of this verse are indeed staggering, as it suggests that the wicked people from Noah's time, whom God judged with the great flood, were still in existence even at the time of Christ's crucifixion.
To answer your question about the time difference between Noah and AD 33, we need to consult the biblical chronology. While the exact dates are subject to some interpretation and debate, most scholars estimate that the flood occurred around 2348 BC, based on the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. If we take this date as a starting point and count forward to the year AD 33, which is the most commonly accepted year for the crucifixion of Jesus, we find that approximately 2,380 years had passed between the time of Noah and the death of Christ.
The fact that the spirits of those who disobeyed during Noah's time were still in existence nearly 2,400 years later is a powerful testament to the continuity of the soul after death. It directly contradicts the idea of annihilationism, which would suggest that these individuals had ceased to exist after their physical deaths.
Moreover, the description of these spirits as being "in prison" implies a state of ongoing confinement or punishment, rather than a complete extinction of their being. This aligns with other biblical passages, such as Jude 7 and Revelation 14:9-11, which speak of the eternal consequences faced by the unrighteous.
The message that Jesus preached to these imprisoned spirits is not explicitly stated in the text, but it is likely that He proclaimed His victory over sin and death and offered them the opportunity to repent and receive salvation. This act of preaching to the spirits of the disobedient further reinforces the idea that the soul continues to exist after death and that the opportunity for repentance and redemption may extend beyond the grave.
As we consider the implications of 1 Peter 3:19-20, it is important to approach this passage with humility and reverence, recognizing that there are aspects of the afterlife and God's dealings with the unseen realm that we may not fully comprehend. However, what is clear from this text is that the Bible affirms the continued existence of the soul after death and the reality of ongoing consequences for those who reject God's offer of salvation.
This understanding should motivate us as Christians to share the gospel message with urgency and compassion, knowing that the eternal destiny of every individual hangs in the balance. By faithfully proclaiming the truth of God's Word and the hope of salvation through Jesus Christ, we can play a part in bringing others to a saving knowledge of Him and the promise of eternal life.
Antinomianism
In the context of Christian theology, antinomianism refers to the belief that because salvation is by faith alone, and because believers are under grace, they are not obligated to obey the moral law as outlined in the Old Testament. This view, however, is a serious misunderstanding of the biblical teaching on grace, faith, and the role of God's law in the life of a believer. The apostle Paul addresses this issue directly in Romans 6:1-2, where he asks rhetorically, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Paul is emphatically rejecting the idea that the abundance of God's grace gives believers license to sin without consequence.
He goes on to explain that those who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into His death (Romans 6:3-4). This means that just as Christ died to sin and was raised to new life, so too are believers to consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. This spiritual reality is to have practical implications for how believers live their lives.
Throughout his letters, Paul stresses the importance of walking in the Spirit and not gratifying the desires of the flesh (Galatians 5:16-25). He speaks of being "crucified with Christ" (Galatians 2:20), meaning that the believer's old, sinful nature has been put to death, and they are now to live in the power of Christ's resurrection life. Far from advocating a life of moral laxity, the New Testament calls believers to a high standard of holiness and obedience. This obedience, however, is not a means of earning salvation, but rather a response of gratitude and love for the salvation that has been freely given in Christ.
Moreover, the moral law of God, as summarized in the Ten Commandments and expounded throughout Scripture, remains a guide for the Christian life. As Paul writes in Romans 7:12, "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." The law serves to reveal God's character and to show us our need for Christ.
However, the believer's relationship to the law has been fundamentally changed through faith in Christ. We are no longer under the law as a means of justification, but we are called to fulfill the law through love (Galatians 5:14). The indwelling Holy Spirit enables the believer to live a life that is pleasing to God, not as a matter of external compliance, but as a matter of internal transformation.
In summary, antinomianism is a serious error that misunderstands the biblical teaching on grace, faith, and the role of God's law. While salvation is indeed by grace alone through faith alone, this does not negate the believer's responsibility to live a life of holiness and obedience. The abundant grace of God in Christ is not a license to sin, but rather a powerful motivation and enablement to live a life that honors God and reflects His character.
As believers, we are called to walk in the Spirit, to put to death the deeds of the body, and to live out our new identity in Christ. This is not a matter of legalism or earning our salvation, but rather a joyful response to the incredible grace we have received in Christ. May we, like Paul, strive to know Christ and the power of His resurrection, being conformed to His death and walking in newness of life (Philippians 3:10-11)
Binitarianism
Binitarianism is a theological view that acknowledges the divinity of the Father and the Son but does not recognize the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person. This view stands in contrast to the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms the existence of three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in one divine essence.
While binitarianism may seem to simplify the complex nature of God, it ultimately fails to account for the full breadth of biblical revelation concerning the Holy Spirit. The New Testament provides clear evidence for the personhood and divinity of the Holy Spirit, alongside the Father and the Son.
At the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17), we see a clear manifestation of the Trinity: the Father speaking from heaven, the Son being baptized, and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove. This event demonstrates the distinct presence and activity of all three persons of the Godhead.
Moreover, the baptismal formula given by Jesus in Matthew 28:19 instructs believers to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The use of the singular "name" suggests the unity of the Godhead, while the mention of all three persons points to their distinct identities.
The benedictions found in the New Testament epistles also reflect a Trinitarian understanding of God. For example, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul writes, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all." This benediction, along with others like it (e.g., Ephesians 4:4-6), demonstrates the equal status and importance of all three persons of the Trinity.
Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 clearly identifies the Holy Spirit as the Lord, affirming His divinity. This passage, along with others that ascribe divine attributes and actions to the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), leaves no doubt as to the Spirit's full deity.
The doctrine of the Trinity, while admittedly mysterious and beyond our complete comprehension, best captures the biblical revelation of God as one in essence and three in person. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct, yet they share the same divine nature and are perfectly united in will and purpose.
This Trinitarian understanding of God has significant implications for our faith and practice. It shapes our worship, as we acknowledge and adore each person of the Trinity. It informs our prayer, as we communicate with God the Father through the mediation of the Son and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. And it guides our mission, as we seek to make disciples and bear witness to the triune God.
While the desire to simplify or streamline our understanding of God is understandable, we must ultimately submit to the testimony of Scripture, even when it challenges our preconceptions or exceeds our comprehension. The Bible's consistent witness to the triune nature of God calls us to embrace the glorious mystery of the Trinity, trusting that God has revealed Himself as He truly is—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, blessed forever.
Christian Uniformitarianism
Christian Uniformitarianism, the idea that all Christians must be part of one earthly organization to be considered "true Christians," is a flawed and unbiblical notion. The passage from Luke 9:49-55 provides a powerful counterargument to this claim.
In this passage, John reports to Jesus that they saw someone casting out demons in His name, and they tried to stop him because he was not one of their group. However, Jesus rebuked them, saying, "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:50). This incident clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not endorse the idea of a single, exclusive organization as the prerequisite for true Christian faith and practice.
The metaphor of a branch on a majestic tree arguing that it is the "only true branch" while drawing its life and resources from a Hebrew trunk and root (Romans 11:24) is a powerful illustration of the fallacy of Christian Uniformitarianism. Just as a tree has many branches that draw sustenance from the same root, the body of Christ is composed of diverse expressions of faith that trace their origins back to the same Hebrew roots (Romans 11:16-24).
Any organization that claims to be the "One True Church" and the exclusive embodiment of Christianity is guilty of arrogance and presumption. While some organizations may hold closer to biblical truth than others, no single group can claim a monopoly on God or Christianity. Throughout history, various Christian groups have made regrettable decisions and fallen into error, further demonstrating the folly of such exclusivist claims.
The true mark of a Christian is not adherence to a particular earthly organization but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and a commitment to following His teachings (John 14:6, Ephesians 2:8-9). Christians are called to unity in Christ (Ephesians 4:3-6), but this unity does not necessitate uniformity in organizational structures or practices.
In conclusion, the idea of Christian Uniformitarianism is false and contradicts the teachings of Scripture. Like branches on a tree, diverse expressions of Christian faith can draw life and nourishment from the same Hebrew roots, and no single group can lay claim to being the "only true branch."
Christian Zionism
Christian Zionism, the idea that the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ, is an extremely plausible yet ultimately misleading doctrine. While it may seem compelling on the surface, it is based on a fundamental ignorance of past events and a misreading of Scripture through the lens of present-day wishful thinking.
The proponents of Christian Zionism fail to account for the tremendous and extraordinary work that Christ accomplished during the first century AD, culminating in the judgment and removal of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, an event known as the Parousia or the Day of the Lord. This pivotal event, prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the contemporary generation of Jesus, effectively brought an end to the old covenant and the Torah theocracy that had existed until the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
To insist that the establishment of the modern political state of Israel in 1948 is a divine act of "catching up" with unfulfilled prophecies is to ignore the monumental significance of Christ's work and the transition from the old covenant to the new. It is a dangerous oversimplification that fails to recognize the profound shift that occurred in the first century.
Furthermore, the doctrine of Christian Zionism has already led to embarrassment and disappointment on multiple occasions, such as the failed predictions surrounding the 1980s and the turn of the millennium. This should serve as a cautionary tale against hastily interpreting current events as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, particularly when such interpretations contradict the clear teachings of Scripture and the historical reality of Christ's decisive work.
While the modern state of Israel undoubtedly holds political and cultural significance, it is a grave error to imbue it with theological import beyond what the Scriptures warrant. To do so is to risk repeating the mistakes of the past, chasing after speculative eschatological theories that ultimately lead to disillusionment and a distortion of the gospel message.
It is crucial, therefore, to approach this doctrine with a gentle yet firm stance, acknowledging its plausibility while simultaneously recognizing its fundamental flaws. We must be willing to confront and correct this error, not out of malice or arrogance, but out of a desire to uphold the truth of Scripture and the centrality of Christ's work in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan in the waning years of the late Second Jewish Commonwealth, and the completion of his terrible acts of judgment in the sudden obliteration of the second century Hebrew State.
Denial of Heaven
Ecstatic Utterances
Fatalism
Futurism
Modalism
Soul Sleep
The Rapture
Two-Economy Salvationism
The Role of Mary in Christian Theology:
A Biblical Perspective [
1. Annihilationism
2. Antinomianism
3. Binitarianism
4. Cessationism
5. Christian Uniformitarianism
6. Christian Zionism
7. Denial of Heaven
8. Ecstatic Utterances
9. Fatalism
10. Futurism
11. Israel Onlyism
12. Leavened Bread for Communion
13. Modalism
14. Mormonism
15. Non-musical Instrumentalism
16. Open Theism
17. Partial Preterism
18. Prosperity Gospel
19. Full Preterism
20. Sabbatarianism
21. Soul Sleep
22. The Rapture
23. Two-Economy Salvationism
24. Unitarianism
25. Universalism
26. Veneration of Mary
27. Water for Communion
]
In the book "Mary the Hope of the World," written by Rev. James Alberione, SSP. STD., the author makes some startling claims about the role of the Virgin Mary in Christian faith and practice. He presents Mary as the "Savior of the world" and suggests that invoking her name is sometimes more effective than calling upon Jesus Himself. These assertions raise important questions about the biblical basis for such views and the implications they have for our understanding of God's plan of salvation.
At the heart of this discussion is the question of how we interpret and apply Scripture. Rev. Alberione begins his introduction by quoting a passage from the Book of Wisdom, which is part of the Alexandrian canon. The Apocryphal books are accepted as canonical by the Catholic Church because they were considered in the second century to be on the same level as the universally acknowledged books of the LXX Testament. But it is crucial to recognize that the passage in question (Wisdom 6:16) is not referring to Mary at all, but rather to Wisdom personified. To apply this verse to Mary is to take it out of context and to read into it a meaning that was never intended.
More troubling, however, are the claims that Rev. Alberione makes about Mary's role in relation to Jesus. He suggests that Mary "anticipates those who seek her and answers them before they call her," and he quotes St. Anselm as saying that "desired help is sometimes more readily obtained by invoking Mary's name than by invoking the Name of Jesus." These statements seem to ascribe divine attributes to Mary, such as omniscience and the power to answer prayers, that are not supported by Scripture. Moreover, they risk undermining the clear biblical teaching that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5) and the only way to the Father (John 14:6).
The portrayal of Jesus as a stern judge who "discerns and weighs everyone's merits," in contrast to Mary as a "merciful Mother" who "helps everyone," also presents a distorted picture of both Jesus and Mary. The New Testament consistently depicts Jesus as the embodiment of God's love, compassion, and mercy, while also affirming His role as the righteous judge. Mary, on the other hand, is never described as a dispenser of mercy or a mediator between God and humanity in the Bible.
When confronted with teachings that seem to contradict the clear message of Scripture, it is essential to respond with both grace and truth. We must approach these matters with sensitivity and respect, recognizing the deep devotion that many people have for Mary. At the same time, we must firmly uphold the biblical truth that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, mediator, and source of hope for the world. Any doctrine or practice that detracts from or obscures this central truth must be lovingly but unequivocally challenged.
Ultimately, our goal should be to point people to the beauty, sufficiency, and supremacy of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures. By focusing on His unparalleled love, grace, and saving power, we can encourage others to place their faith and hope fully in Him, rather than in any other figure, no matter how revered or esteemed. As we engage in these important conversations, may we always do so with gentleness, respect, and a deep commitment to the truth of God's Word.
15 Water for Communion