Cults, Heresies, and Heterodoxies

By Charles and Cindy Meek

Top of page The Challenge

An unexamined belief is not worth holding. But religion and spirituality can be a touchy subject even so. There is often a great deal of emotion wrapped up in religion. Your reaction to this article may be favorable, or it may not be, based on an emotional reaction. Whatever your initial reaction, our challenge to you is for you to set aside the emotional aspect of your perspective for the moment, and examine whatever you believe about God in light of the actual available evidence.

There is an old saying that we should not discuss religion or politics in polite company. We disagree with that idea! Americans, especially, have a tradition of open dialogue and debate. It is through legitimate civil discussion that we can grow intellectually and spiritually.

Sometimes we shy away from discussions of serious issues with friends for fear of offending them or embarrassing ourselves. We believe, however, that it is important and meaningful to discuss tough issues with friends. Our experience has been, that when we discuss significant issues with people we care about, in a manner that respects the other's views, those friendships are deepened. Issues of theology are very interesting and can lead to great discoveries and friendships. The very process of truth-seeking is a marvelous experience in itself.

We hope this article will encourage dialogue among friends. Of course, it is important to approach such discussions with an attitude of sincerity and vulnerability. The most productive plane for these discussions is to base them on reason and evidence rather than dogma.

No religion is held on the basis of pure blind faith—otherwise it would be superstition rather than faith. Certainly most folks have what they think are valid reasons for their beliefs about God. So there really should be no logical reason why someone would be reluctant to discuss his or her religious views!

The only potential problem is the way that such discussions take place. There is a wrong way to go about it. An attitude such as the following is as unproductive as it is unreasonable:

"Well, that's the way it is. I believe what I believe just because I want to believe it. And furthermore, don't confuse me with the facts!"

A more rational and productive attitude is:

"You know, I have always been under the impression that such and such is true. But, I know that there are a lot of views out there. What do you believe about God? In fact, I would be happy for you to try to convince me that what you believe is true! If you'd like to chat about it, we may decide to agree to disagree. But that's OK. We'll both learn something in the process."

Spiritual truth is too important not to discuss. It is more important than "your pride or my pride." It is in that spirit of love and truth-seeking that we offer the thoughts in this article. So, you might want to email this article to a friend or relative to strike up a conversation about matters of faith.

Top of page Introduction

The Bible is a document that is really not that hard to understand. And yet many groups twist it this way and that, giving it different interpretations. God must look down on us humans and "shake his head." How could we so badly mess up what He has clearly given us?

One of the objections to Christianity is that there are many different groups all claiming to be Christians. And yet we all give different messages. How could there be so much disagreement if Christianity is reliable?

Well, the simple answer is sin. It is man's sin that spoils it. We are all subject to it (Romans 3:23). The real problem with doctrinal divides is not what the Bible says or does not say. It is our proclivity to read into it what we think it ought to say based on pre-conceived notions or tradition. 

The purpose of this article is give a defense for the historic orthodox Christian faith. The circle of those to be considered Christians is pretty large. But there are groups that simply cannot be considered within the circle. These are the cultic or clearly heretical groups.

In addition, there are groups or individuals that have moved far enough away from the center that we believe need to re-examine their views. These include the liberals on one extreme, and the legalists on the other. We are not saying that that these folks are not Christians. But a term that might be used is heterodox, that is, unorthodox or out of the mainstream.

But we must be careful in all of this. This history of Christianity is such that some have drawn the circle too small. All sorts of charges have gone back and forth in the name of Christ. And this is not good. Charges of heresy have been unfounded. Indeed, the definition of heresy has even changed over time. While we have moved beyond burning people at the stake, Christians still often harbor harsh feelings toward the views of other good Christians. We have personally felt the weight of people that hold to views like a trapped elephant. We have seen how people can consider themselves a member of their denomination first, and Christians second.

This is not healthy for those involved or for the church. The Bible calls us to unity John 17:20-23; Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 3:12-16. Sectarianism is a sin. There is, in fact, a great deal of lattitude for differing views on many subjects within Christianity. But there is a line that must be drawn in the sand, and we will try to draw it.

Top of page Orthodox Christianity, Essential Beliefs

Over the centuries, Christian leaders have agreed on certain elements that are key to the faith. While this is not necessarily all-inclusive, below is a list of the essential beliefs that are consistent with "being a Christian."

  • There is one God. While there is only one God, he exists in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, these three manifestations of God exist in one divine being or essence.
  • God, the Father, made everything that exists—visible and invisible—and continues to sustain it.
  • Jesus Christ, is true man, and at the same time is of the same nature and essence as God the Father. As the Son of God he is truly divine. That Jesus was born of a virgin is supporting evidence of his dual nature of both man and God. He lived a perfect life while on earth, having come to suffer and die for mankind as a ransom for our sins. After he died on the cross and was buried, he came back to life on the third day after his death (was bodily resurrected), an event which had been predicted in the Bible.
  • God, the Holy Spirit, is also true God and is to be worshipped and glorified as such. The Holy Spirit invites each person to partake of Christ’s blessings which are offered to us, and to experience a personal relationship with Christ. The Holy Spirit gives us the saving knowledge of Jesus, our Savior, so that we can trust and believe and rejoice in Him. The Holy Spirit also comforts, guides, and sustains us in the faith.
  • God is perfectly holy and perfectly just. Mankind, from Adam on, has separated himself from God by sin and thus deserves death and eternity in hell. Nobody is good enough to meet God's standard of holiness.
  • Salvation is the condition of being saved from sin, death, and God's wrath. Because Jesus overcame death by living a perfect life in our stead, and by his bodily resurrection to take the punishment for our sins, believers can confidently look forward to eternal life in heaven. Salvation is given by grace; that is, it is a free gift from God to all who repent and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
  • Baptism is a means, an instrument, or a sign of acceptance of his God's grace.
  • The Bible is the inspired Word of God, and is without error in the original manuscripts.
  • All believers in Christ are members of one spiritual body, the Church.

Top of page "Christian" Cults

While there may be several kinds of cults, we are interested in the "pseudo-Christian cults." These are the groups that call themselves Christians, but really are not.

There are several characteristics of a cult. Here is a partial list of characteristics that are common to them. Every cult does not necessarily have all these characteristics, but all cults have some of them.

  • Typically, there is a central human character who has a controlling influence over the cult members even years after his death. The Heaven's Gate cult, the Fundamental Latter Day Saints (FLDS) group, or the Jim Jones cult are examples.
  • Behavior is cliquish to the extreme. They teach that if you are not a member of their particular group, you will not go to heaven.
  • They participate in the esoteric, i.e. they may claim to have a specialized and secret knowledge that can only be apprehended by those in the group.
  • Another tactic is to withhold aspects of their theology until you are well entrenched within the group. You may not learn about the strange and aberrant aspects of their teachings up front. Mormons fit into this category.
  • They put extreme pressure on their members to stay in the group. They may teach, for example, that to leave their church body condemns the person, sometimes even to a hell even worse than if they had never been part of their church in the first place. In some cases, leaving the church also ostracizes you from your own family and friends. This is especially true of both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • They overbearingly warn you against reading religious materials that are not published by their group. This tactic is a method of mind control. God wants us to seek Him freely (2 Corinthians 3:17). Intellectual honesty begins with a willingness to consider evidence contrary to ones current view. A forced adherence to a belief system is artificial, thus not honoring to God. Any group that discourages you from reading other materials in order to seek the truth is almost certainly a cult. Jehovah's Witnesses are the prime example of this.
  • Cults typically use Christian terminology, but pour different meanings into the words. This is why they so easily trap people. For example, heaven, hell, salvation, Jesus, faith, gospel, etc., may have very different meanings than those of the historic orthodox Christian faith (Galatians 1:6-9). Mormons are especially guilty of this.
  • Thus, cults usually have a different Jesus than the one of the historic Christian faith. Mormons, for example, use Jesus in the name of their organization (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) but they have constructed a Jesus far different from the one in the Bible. For example, they say that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer (the devil)—denigrating the unique position of Jesus. The Bible warns about this very serious error (2 Corinthians 11:4). Mormons also say that Jesus is merely the "god" of planet earth, and that there are many gods—one for each planet. Mormons thus really teach polytheism, which is contrary to the God of the Bible. The Bible teaches that there is only one God (who appears to us in the three persons of the Trinity).
  • Cults invaribly teach that salvation is by your good works. But what makes Christianity unique versus all other religions is the teaching that salvation (entry into heaven) is by faith, not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). While orthodox Christianity teaches that nobody is good enough to earn their way to heaven, every cult has developed some system of obedience that the member must follow in order to get to heaven. Biblical Christianity teaches the importance of good works in the life of the believer, good works being an evidence of a true saving faith. But good works come as a result of faith—not as an initial requirement for eternal salvation. (See I've lived a pretty good life. I'll go to heaven, if there is one, won't I? and our Christian Cram Course).
  • Pseudo-Christian cults typically use the Bible as one of their source texts. But they emphasize other materials—books or pamphlets—published by their own group, as being on par with the Bible or as the last word in biblical interpretation. When you study these other works, you will find that they conflict with the Bible in key areas. (A basic law of logic says that if two things contradict each other, both cannot be true.) Such contradictions discredit these teachings. Truth is internally consistent, not contradictory. Mormons, for example, have other books besides the Bible.
  • Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible. This is another tip-off that something might be amiss. Scholarly examinations of their New World Translation Bible have shown it to be filled with purposeful errors designed to mislead the reader and conform to pre-conceived theological ideas.
  • Others have simply chosen to deny the authority of Scripture, choosing what to believe is true and discard or ignore what they don't like. This may be particularly deceiving as these folks may actually be part of "main line" Christian denominations. While some might merely call their teaching heretical, other may go further and consider them cultic.

Top of page Heresy

Heresies are viewpoints of professing Christians that differ flagrantly from the Bible. These differences are unabashedly at odds with Scripture, not merely differences of opinion about interpretation. An example of a modern heretic is now-retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong. Spong has called for a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief, away from theism and from the afterlife as a reward for human behavior (Spong). He rejects the truth claims of such Christian docrines as the virgin birth and even the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This man's views are heretical, and should be condemned by all Christians as such.

Top of page Heterodoxy

There is a good bit of wiggle room within the historic orthodox Christian faith. That is, there are a number of doctrinal issues that Christians can debate but not divide over. While we believe that there are correct and incorrect interpretations on these issues, we admit that they are not absolutely clear in Scripture. Some of the issues that are legitimately debatable from Scripture include: infant baptism, women in ministry, use of creeds, worship style, the precise nature of man’s free will, and eschatology (views about what the Bible calls the "end of the age"), etc.

Thus some beliefs may be incorrect, but are not crucial to being a true Christian. Our plea is that we need to be most charitable to our Christian brothers as regards to these issues. Let's show unity, melting down the denominational barriers, going arm and arm to proclaim the gospel! We can debate these issues and others vigorously without dividing over them.

But, outside of the above listed areas are certain concepts—such as the nature of man (his sinfulness), the nature of God (his holiness), the divinity of Christ, the uniqueness of Christ, and the authority of Scripture—that should not be compromised. The central issue for Christianity is that salvation has been attained for all who believe on Jesus. Since salvation is by grace through faith alone, it is crucial to have a correct understanding of the object of that faith.

May we here offer a somewhat broader view of who is a Christian. This view is similar to those offered by the founders of the Restoration Movement in the early 1800's—Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone.

We consider to be our Christian brother or sister anyone who:

1) believes that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, confessing Him as personal Savior (and by necessity accepts the authority of the Bible),


2) repents of his sins (thus acknowledging and forsaking his sins), and


3) trusts in Jesus as Lord, seeking to conform his life to the will of God (as evidence of a saving faith, as best he understands God’s will and his duty).

Here is where we draw the circle of believers. Yet, there are those within Christendom who espouse views that put them on the edge of this circle, and even outside the edge. We would call these heterodox beliefs. These generally fall into two broad categories: left wing liberalism and right-wing legalism. Those of the liberal persuasion tend to interpret the Bible in such a broad way as to include views contradictory to biblical teaching. Those of the legalist persuasion tend to interpret the Bible in such a narrow way as to exclude reasonable interpretations that do not agree with their ultra-strict views. Thus liberals are too inclusive, and legalists are too exclusive.

Both viewpoints have certain teachings that are, in fact, outside the bounds of the historic orthodox Christian faith. The confusing thing is that both groups are found within denominations that are recognized as mainstream. Suspect unorthodox beliefs have crept into the midst of some mainstream denominations.

Both extremes are be motivated by the best of intentions. Liberalism is often motivated by a heart-felt desire to be inclusive; thus liberals are marvelously people-oriented. Legalism is often motivated by a sincere desire to be faithful to God; thus legalists are zealously committed to their doctrine.

Actually, both extremes tend to do the same thing—pick the passages of Scripture they like and dismiss the ones that seem to disagree with their pre-conceived notions. You might say that they tear out the pages of the Bible that they don't like. The correct way to interpret Scripture is to harmonize all of it. In this way, there should be no problematic passages. That is, there should be no passages that have to be brushed aside as not agreeing with the ones you prefer.

Liberalism—Five Critical Issues

We see several issues that are problematic for liberals:

1. The Authority of Scripture.  A wave of liberalism swept Christianity from the so-called German school of "higher criticism" in the Nineteenth Century. A result of this was to no longer accept the Bible as inerrant (without error). For example, some even questioned the miracles themselves. Others have said that the Bible is not authoritative on matters of science and history, while maintaining an inspired view on matters of faith. Some may say that the Bible "contains the word of God but is not the Word of God." The problem with all this should be obvious. If you start throwing things out, where do you stop? Well, you don't, as the obnoxious result of John Shelby Spong shows.

The unfortunate part of this is that there is no need to doubt the authority of scripture. It has been looked at in depth for thousands of years and there is adequate evidence to accept the Bible as trustworthy. (We have various articles on our site about this, such as MAPS and Modern Scholarship.) If you as a liberal think, for example, that there are errors or contradictions in the Bible, we challenge you to cite specific situations. Indeed, there has never been a time in history to have more confidence in the Bible.

Liberal Christians are faced with a serious problem. They consider themselves to as Christians, while being unwilling to affirm the authority of Scripture. While it is not necessary to view the Bible as inerrant to be a Christian, at the very least, the Bible must be a basically reliable and trustworthy historical document. Without this basis, to claim to be a Christian would be suspect if not irrational, since everything we know about Christianity comes from the Bible. 

2. The Social Gospel. After having thrown out much of the Bible, liberals found themselves with little to proclaim. So they turned to social action as redemptive. Social action is a proper part of the Christian life, but it is not the gospel. The gospel is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of the sins of fallen man (1 Corinthians 15:1-11). This gospel is the central theme of the Bible! St. Paul has multiple warnings about preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Corinthians 11:4). See our article What is the Gospel?

3. Redefinition of the Word Justice.  The definition of justice is the administration of punishment or reward. The Bible makes it clear that God, being perfectly just, has both aspects of wrath and of mercy. Liberal-minded Christians may emphasize only one aspect of the nature of God—his mercy. But to ignore God's wrath is to ignore huge chunks of Scripture. Try doing a Bible word search under wrath. The tragedy of this view is that one cannot understand God's mercy unless he first understands God's law and wrath. Since we are saved from something—specifically God's wrath—the message of salvation makes not sense if the hearer does not understand from what we are saved. If you are not preaching the wrath of God, you are not preaching the gospel.

4. Universalism. Universalism is the idea that there are many paths to God. In Christianity, it is the view that all human beings are saved by Jesus Christ and will eventually come into harmony in God's kingdom. While this is a nice thought, it is not biblical. Christianity is not compatible with other worldviews or religions. They teach contradictory things. Jesus Christ claimed exlusivity. See our Is Christ the Only Way to God?

5. Abolition of Hell. Those who want to say that there is no hell, or that we will all avoid hell, simply do not understand the nature of God or the nature of man. Man is sinful, and a just God cannot just wink at sin. Hell is discussed by Jesus more than any other biblical writer. In fact, it is the third most discussed topic of Jesus! We should thus believe in hell for two good reasons: If perfect justice really exists, and since it does not exist on earth, a just God must administer it in the afterlife. Secondly, if Jesus said it, a Christian has to believe it. See our Christian Cram Course.

Related to all of the issues discussed above is the problem of antinomianism—that is, the rejection of biblical law. This is a serious distortion of Christianity. This is nothing short of the same rejection of Christianity by atheists. The human mind wants more than anything to reject the idea of being judged. Indeed, man's fear of losing one's autonomy is even greater than the fear of the abyss of meaninglessness. So, each of these critical issues is, in the final analysis, a psychological condition that the liberal Christian shares with the atheist by rejecting Scripture—not on the basis of evidence and reason but on the basis of suppressing the truth as Paul discusses in Romans 1,2.

Liberals sometimes say that they are "Jesus only" Christians. This is an open admission that they omit or actually deny much of Scripture. They take this stand not because the evidence supports their view of Scripture, but because they want to construct their own theology. The obvious problem with this is if they deny the authority of Scripture, and since Scripture is the only source of information about Jesus, how do they know who the Jesus they worship is? 

While they think there are honoring Jesus, they are not. They have to disregard much of what Jesus himself says to hold their views, especially regarding the authority of Scripture as well as what Jesus claimed for himself! Some 75 times in the New Testament Jesus confirmed that he considered Scripture to be authoritative even down to the smallest notation—"jot and tittle" (Matthew 5:18 KJV)! He said that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). He claimed that all authority was given to him (Matthew 28:18). He claimed we should know him by his miracles (John 10:22-42). The irony for liberals is this: Since it is the Bible which the sole source of who Jesus is, if one denies the authority of the Bible, one cannot know who Jesus is. This is a hopeless self-contradiction.

So liberals, while saying that they are "Jesus only Christians" actually are inventing a Jesus to suit themselves, which is a vioaltion of the Second Commandment—and is thus idolatry!

Certainly the liberal cannot say the Bible is the Word of God and also say that it errs.  If Jesus cannot be trusted, the liberal Christian has no leg to stand on. If Jesus can be trusted, we must acquiesce to his view of Scripture and to his view of himself.

Inclusiveness and tolerance are ultimate realties in liberal theology. But this view denies the very teachings of Jesus. For example, liberal theologians may suggest that when Jesus said of himself that He is the only way to heaven (John 14:6-11), either Jesus did not really say that (thus the Bible is in error), or that Jesus did not mean what He said (thus Jesus was fallible). In either case, the liberal is caught in an inescapable circle of inconsistency. The inconsistency can further be shown that while they preach tolerance, they certainly are not tolerant of what the Bible actually says or especially not tolerant of those who do believe that the Bible is absolutley true!  

Liberalism ultimately destroys itself in self-contradictions and nihilism (the denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth). Those of a liberal persuasion are left with a theology based on what they wish was true rather than what the Bible says is true.

A few words to our liberal Christian friends. First, thank you for often demonstrating Christ's love. Those of us who consider ourselves evangelicals benefit from your demonstration of that love.

But perhaps you have a misunderstanding of what evangelicals believe. Some liberals Christians apparently think typical evangelicals believe in the dictation theory of biblical inspiration (that God literally dictated the Bible word-for-word to the biblical writers). We reject this view. We reject a wooden literalist interpretation of the Bible. For more on this we offer further comments on our site at Biblical Interpretation.

A thought about miracles. Some liberals charge that miracles are the fantasies of ignorant people who did not understand the laws of nature. We respond that the men and women of Jesus' time were well aware of the laws of nature. They were fishermen, carpenters, and even doctors (St. Luke). Further, we say to you that the rejection of miracles is tantamount to atheism. If God exists, miracles are quite possible. Science does not disprove miracles. Miracles are, by definition, outside of science. We have more comments about this on our Tough Questions page.

The paradox of liberalism, as Ron Rhodes says, is a failed attempt to make Christianity "relevant." For everyone to whom Christianity is "made relevent" (those who believe miracles are unscientific), there are likely thousands for whom it is made irrelevant. For indeed, the liberal version of Christianity lacks an authentic spirituality to help people and give them hope in the midst of life's problems. As Rhodes says, if you as a liberal really want to experience the love of God, the place to begin is a living relationship with Jesus Christ in his totality.

Legalism—Five Critical Issues

Liberals know who they are. In fact, they generally wear the label with honor. They can be found in many mainline denominations. However, legalists do know who they are. Indeed, while they are very familier with the charge of legalism against them, they strongly deny this label. So we must name them. Legalists are primarily (though not exclusively) found among a specific group of Churches of Christ, the hyperconservative non-instrumental faction. This is not a small group. Especially in the southern part of the United States, there is a Church of Christ in every little town, many of whom are of this hyperconservative faction.

It is ironic that perhaps the most liberal denomination in America—the United Church of Christ—has a similar name to the most legalistic denomination in America. For this discussion, the reader should at least know that most members of the conservative Church of Christ do not consider other Christians as being saved or may even consider us to be of the devil (not unlike how Jehovah's Witnesses view Christians). But this is a one-way street. While we consider them to be true and sincere Christians, they do not reciprocate the view. For more information see our article Bible Questions for the Church of Christ. 

We think they the Churches of Christ have much to offer the rest of us Christians. In fact, we greatly appreciate their dedication to the faith. But we do think that some of their theology needs to be addressed. Theological legalism professes to accept the Bible as innerant and the sole basis for Christian truth. This, of course, is the same as the historic orthodox Christian faith. But when you examine legalist teaching closely, you find that it ignores important parts of Scripture that are a problem to their narrow view. Legalism may merely brush off these problematic sections of Scripture as "difficult." Thus, their attempt to be faithful to Scripture results in the very thing that they intended not to do—be unfaithful to it. Here are issues that we see as problematic for legalists:

1. Denial of Original Sin. Christianity is different from every other religion or worldview. Christianity insists that man is inheritantly sinful. While we are not without the ability to do good, every aspect of our nature is touched by sin. Because of this condition, God's gift of his one and only Son to live the perfect life that we cannot, and to die on the cross as payment for our sins was absolutely necessary. If man is essentially good—then the penalty of Christ's sacrificial death does not fit the crime. In fact, if man has it in him to be good enough to satisfy God, who needs Jesus? This is the same error in understanding that Islam, communism, secularism, and liberalism all make. These worldviews are united that while man may make mistakes, all it takes to redeem us is law and education and token tolerance to God or each other (let's all just get along, OK?). Ironically, by denying that man is basically sinful, such legalists may never have thought about it but they find themselves in bed with anti-Christian groups in this regard. But all of history proves that these utopian ideas are inadequate. 

2. Selective Use of Scripture. Let us show how, in our opinion, legalists misinterpet Scripture by looking further at the concept of Original Sin. The Bible says that

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned....But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!....Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. (Romans 5:12, 15, 18).

The Bible also says:

  • "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5)"
  • "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6)."
  • "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (Jeremiahs 17:9)."
  • "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins (Ephesians 2:1)." Note: We are dead, not just sick in our sins.
  • "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful (fleshly) nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3)." Note: We are by nature objects of God's wrath.

In addition to these passages, the doctrine of man's inherent sinfulnes is based on many passages of the Bible. Since legalists claim to follow the Bible, we will take the time to list some of them: Genesis 8:21; 1 Kings 8:46;  Job 14:1-4, 25:2-6; Psalm 51:3-5, 53:1-3, 58:3-5; Proverbs 14:12, Ecclesiastes 7:20; Isaiah 53:6, 55:8-9, 59:2; Daniel 9:1-11; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 3:9-23, 7:13-25, 8:5-8, 14:23; Galatians 3:22, 5:16-21; James 2:10-11; 1 John 1:8-10. 

So, the historic orthodox Christian faith has understood from Scripture, that at least prior to conversion mankind has a sin problem by our very nature. After conversion we become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). At this point, while our sinful nature remains, we are no longer controlled by our sinful nature (Romans 7:5, 8:8-9). While the Christian hates sin we still continue to commit sin (Romans 7:14-25). 

While we may not fully understand just how it is, the Bible insists that we somehow—in some sense—acquired our sinful nature from the very beginning through Adam. While we may not comprehend the mechanism, we accept it as true not only because the Bible says so but also by confirming evidence by observation of human kind and our own hearts. All of history is proof of this problem.

Even children have a selfish (sinful) nature. A two-year old's definition of mine is anything that he has in his possession plus anything that anyone else holds! This is perfectly natural for a child. He has to be taught to overcome this.

When we pointed out these things to a member of the Church of Christ, he quoted a single passage as a counter: Ezekiel 18:1-32. But, if you look it up, all this passage says is that a son is held accountable for not committing specific sins of his father. It says nothing at all about the son still having a sinful nature. Using this Old Testament passage to try to prove a point is most interesting coming from a member of the Church of Christ, since they have a low view of the Old Testament. In other instances, such as their refusal to use instrumental music in worship, they say that the Old Testament has does not apply. So they are completely inconsistent with their own method of interpretation!

3. Misunderstanding of the Gospel. Just as liberals distort the message of the gospel, so do legalists—but in a different way. To be fair, while liberals seem to purposely distort the meaning of the gospel, legalists only change the meaning mistakenly, in our opinion. Legalists will say that the gospel is a formula: Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, and Be Baptized. (Or they may say that the gospel is the whole of the New Testament.) Actually, the gospel is clearly defined in the New Testament as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to save man from sin and God's wrath (1 Corinthians 15:1-11, et.al). It is specifically the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16)—not the power of man unto salvation. Note that each of the five points in their formula have to do with what man does. While each of these five points are very important for a Christian, they are not the gospel. Further, the Bible specifically separates baptism from the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17-18), so the gospel is not sacramental. For more on this, see our article What is the Gospel.

4. Works Righteousness. Legalists put emphasis on obedience. Indeed, we at Faith Facts agree that modern Christianity puts too little emphasis on obedience, and we appreciate the Church of Christ for attempting to bring us back to an obedient faith. But we think that they have gone too far when they say that good works actually save us. There is just too much evidence in the New Testament saying that we are saved by God's grace and not of our own works. We could quote over 100 passages of Scripture that verify this. (Anyone who would like the list may email us.) But the most quoted passage is Ephesians 2:8-10. This passage explicitly explains that we are not saved by our works but by faith, but that works are a result of faith.

The Churches of Christ are also correct that the Bible commands us to do good works. But historically Christians have consistently said that the way that we reconcile the two concepts of faith and works is by understanding that while we are saved by grace—God's free gift in Jesus Christ—a true saving faith will show itself by the fruit of good works. But this is not the same as saying that it is the works themselves that save us. For more on this, we refer the reader to our Christian Cram Course.

Here is our question for the Church of Christ: Do you believe that grace is necessary for salvation—absolutely necessary? If so, must we not conclude that no amount of good works can satisfy God? Think about it—if it is necessary, and it was taken away, then there is no possiblity at all of our being saved. On the other hand, if you say that grace is not necessary, then how can you deny the over 100 times in the New Testament that insist that it is?

This whole question harkens back to the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius was a monk in the Fifth Century who taught that grace was not necessary for salvation. The church condemned him as a heretic. It seems that every generation has had to deal with the same issue over and over.

We are of the opinion that legalism is the same idea that was condemned by Jesus (Pharisaism—Matthew 23:1-36, Luke 18:9-14) and condemned by Paul (Judaizers—Acts 15:1-21, Galatians 2:3-9, 14-16, 5:2-4).

5. Denial of the Work of the Holy Spirit. Legalists are not monolithic in their beliefs. But many of them actually say that the Holy Spirit is no longer active today. Apparently those who say this are overreacting to Christians who believe that salvation is through the work of the Holy Spirit. In order to be consistent with their view of the importance of man's contribution to salvation through works, they feel they must deny that the Holy Spirit, while He is part of the Trinity, is no longer active. Or perhaps they are reacting to charismatic Christians who put a very high emphasis on the work of the Spirit. But for whateve reason that they take this view, it strikes us a most problematic construct of the Bible. The Holy Spirit is mentioned over and over again in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Denying the work of the Holy Spirit is very close to being the unforgivable sin that the Bible speaks of in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:22-30.

A couple of words for our friends in the Church of Christ. Thank you for your example of dilegent study and devotion to the Word of God. You are a model for us to return to a true biblical faith.

But we ask you to consider the numerous calls to unity in the New Testament that we cited earlier in this article. There are many issues that Christians may debate but not divide over. Yes, many of us may be wrong on certain things. But a man who has lost a leg, or even both legs, is still fully a man. This is the foundation of the Restoration Movement of which you are an heir. Consider returning to the central concept of unity taught by the founders of your movement, Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone.

Top of page What Next

The Bible tells us to test all things and to hold on to only the good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). If you suspect that you are involved with a group that fails the tests given above, get out now. Look for a Christian church that is part of the historic orthodox faith—one that accepts the Bible as authoritative in its entirety in its intended context.

You may be in an errant church because your family and friends are there. You may be there because inertia is keeping you there. Whatever the reason, it is not a good enough reason to stay.

Links

For further information on this topic, here are some good web sites: