PART 2 PERSONAL ASSOCIATIONS

What our response be toward those Christians who deny a doctrinal foundation?

Knowing When to Maintain Them and Knowing When to Avoid Them

�-�Doctrinal Differences

CHAPTER 3

Doctrinal Differences

What should our response be toward those believers who deny a foundational doctrine?   

Suggested Reading: 1 Corinthians 15:1-33

There were some believers, who initially believed in the resurrection of Christ, but subsequently changed their mind about it.

       For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 11-12, 14)

       Paul said that if there was no resurrection, then not only would the content of his preaching have no meaning since the declaration of the gospel could save no one, but the content of their faith (what they believed in) would have no meaning since it would be centered on a crucified man, and not in the risen Christ.

       And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)      

       Furthermore, Paul said that if Christ was not risen, then they were yet in their sins meaning they were unpardoned sinners as all mankind would still be. And therefore, at the last judgment every person would be guilty before God, because the ransom needed to pay the penalty for their sins would not have been provided. Consequently, no one would have an opportunity to enter heaven. There would be no indwelling Spirit and thus no impartation of eternal life along with all of the other bundle of benefits that would otherwise have been received at salvation. 

       Why would those who had been born anew deny the resurrection of Christ? Many commentators say it was because they enjoyed continuing in sin and somehow had to rationalize their carnal behavior. They reasoned if there was no resurrection, then what they did with their bodies would have no bearing on their future.

       So, what was Paul’s instruction to the assembly of believers, who remained steadfast in their belief in the resurrection? Did he say you must love your fellow believers, especially those who denied the resurrection, unconditionally? Another word, you should not let this difference in view cause you to be unloving toward them in the sense of separating from their company, but rather let bygones be bygones, and be forgiving (forget about what they have done).

       Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. (1 Corinthians 15:33)

       What he said to them was don’t be deceived (led astray) by their smooth and plausible arguments. If you continue to have communications (close contact; fellowship) with those who deny the resurrection, then your good manners (character; good morals) will be corrupted (ruined) and you will soon be as they are. There will always be those, whether in leadership or not, who will proclaim teachings that do not support foundational teachings (e.g. deity of Christ; the trinity- one God existing as three persons - coequal, coinfinite, and coeternal - all three possessing the same essential nature; the resurrection of Christ; the gospel; salvation by grace being only found in Christ, etc.).

       These Christians were admonished to not have fellowship (close contact) with them. It is inevitable that there will be times when we will be talking to someone of a different faith about one of these foundational truths (e.g. the gospel). Some will respond to it, some will consider it, and others might get very angry to the presentation of it. They might even tell us about how wonderful their faith is. It’s one thing to have a discussion about someone’s faith, but it’s quite another thing to participate in the worship of it.

       …both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe… (Romans 3:9-10; 20, 22)

       Another example of how a believer should respond to a foundational doctrine is found in the book of Romans. At the church of Rome there were teachers, who were proclaiming that a person could become justified (made righteous) by keeping the Mosaic Law. Paul’s response was clear and unwavering.

       Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 14:17)

       He said to mark (identify) those, which caused divisions (attempts to separate people into groups by opposing the sound doctrine set forth) and offenses (causing a fellow believer to leave the right road; giving occasion for others to fall into sin), which goes against the doctrine (teaching; instruction), which you have learned; and avoid (to avoid them as teachers; to avoid them in their instructions; to have no religious fellowship with them). There are some teachings that you should be aware of, when attending any church. If they espouse that: Jesus is not God come in the flesh; salvation can be obtained by obeying the tenets of the Mosaic Law; water baptism is the basis for regeneration; salvation is not just confined in Jesus; there is no such thing as the trinity, one God existing as three persons - coequal, coinfinite, and coeternal - all three possessing the same essential nature, then you should walk right out of there and don’t look back.  

       You might respond by saying isn’t your suggestion unloving? My comment to you is, isn’t your response unloving in respect to your fellow believer? Another word why would you encourage a fellow Christian by your example to want to attend such church and participate in worship service? Why would you want them to be listening to teachings that are opposed to the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith?

       While we are talking about foundational doctrines, what should our response be in respect to those doctrines of the faith that are considered non-foundational (e.g. drinking alcohol, tithing, eternal security, forgiving one another, etc.)?

       I have known fellow believers, even pastors, who had a unique perspective concerning a particular non-foundational doctrine of the Christian faith, which had a crippling impact on the spiritual well-being of the assembly. I can think of one person in particular, who was my mentor. He was an incredible preacher of the word. He consistently proclaimed the gospel, to which many responded and whose lives were changed forever.

       As for his teachings, some of them were quite different as to those which I heard when I was a member of the Catholic faith. One of them which resonated with me was the declaration that a New Testament believer did not grow spiritually by what they did for God, but rather it was by seeing oneself as God sees them in light of his word, and appropriating these new truths for themselves, memorizing and meditating on them throughout the day. Weaknesses or strengths of the flesh (sin nature) were considered as being unaddressed, if the believer simply tried not to commit them, but rather it was through confession of known sin to God the Father and the appropriation of His perspective in these areas according to the word, which would bring about a change in one’s thoughts and thus a change in one’s actions. Besides these revolutionary teachings, teams of volunteers were being sent out to various parts of the world to preach the gospel and teach new believers these kingdom truths.

       And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. (Exodus 4:15-16)

       Even in a church like this, which I would call Spirit-filled, there can seemingly come out of nowhere a teaching on a non-foundational doctrine, which can cause havoc in the assembly. In this particular case a seemingly new doctrine was being proclaimed called Delegated Authority (church authority). Some believe that the basis for this teaching was from a book written by a well know believer in Christian circles called Watchman Nee. This doctrine stated that as Moses had direct communication with God thus declaring to the Jews His words, so in like manner the leadership of the church has direct communication with God hearing what He has to say (revelations) by means of the Holy Spirit and declaring whatever that is to the congregation. While it’s true that the apostles and prophets of the early church received direct revelation from God, which was eventually written down to form the New Testament canon, the question is, does God still convey his truths to the leadership of the church in this manner? This doctrine further emphasized that Moses was considered as a type of the New Testament leader. So it was reasoned as the Israelites were under total obedience to the words of Moses so should the New Testament believer be under total obedience to the words of those in the leadership positions of the New Testament church. 

       Whatever message was brought forth from the pulpit would be considered as thoughts ministered to them by the Holy Spirit; and as such they were to be obeyed without hesitation. Before one knew it another twist was added to this doctrine. This had to do with the committing of sin by someone in leadership. It was determined that as a woman named Rahab lied to the king of Jericho’s messengers, when she was asked if she knew where the two Jewish spies were located (Joshua 2:1-4), so were those in leadership allowed to commit sin as long as it promoted the kingdom of God. What about those sins that didn’t promote the kingdom, how were these to be addressed? Another Old Testament verse was used to support this perspective (Psalms 51:4), which suggested that a leadership’s sin, no matter how egregious, were only accountable to God. Therefore, any sin committed by anyone in leadership was not allowed to be questioned by any member of the assembly. If any church member dared bring up such a matter, they would be considered as being un-loyal and divisive, and as such would receive divine discipline.

       As one might deduce this view was applauded by those in leadership. They could sin and get away with it. However, there were some in authority who saw this approach as being unbiblical and subsequently put together a doctrinal statement concerning church authority that was based on scriptures from the New Testament.

       Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

       Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3)

       For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

       They argued that Moses was a type of Christ and not the church leader. As the Israelites were baptized unto Moses as God’s representative to them, so is the New Testament believer baptized unto Christ, who is their mediator. While it’s true that God gave leadership gifts to the church (e.g. apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers), and specifically revelation (a revealing of something unknown as pertaining to the content of the various books of the New Testament) to some of them, it could be deduced

that once the canon of scripture was completed there was no longer the receiving of direct revelation (transmittal of words) from God the Father under the anointing (the Holy Spirit), but rather what would now transpire would be what is called “illumination”, which refers to the making clear of an already revealed scriptural truth, thus conveying the best sense or meaning by means of the teaching ministry of the Spirit.

       Along with this a different description on the anointing was presented. The former, which stated that the anointing, the person of the Holy Spirit, conveyed to the leaders the exact words they were to speak, was restated by saying that the words which came from the mouth of those in leadership are men’s words, while the Holy Spirit is especially present to help their human infirmity in conveying the best sense or meaning. And in respect as to whether someone in leadership was always anointed as some contended, this was changed to say that it was impossible for God to be present in that which is untrue or biblically impossible that false and unscriptural teaching be anointed teaching (under the influence of the Spirit) at the same time.

       Believe it or not it seemed that the recommended changes were well received. A written declaration of the changes made as to these doctrines (e.g. church authority, the anointing, revelation-illumination) was generated and handed out to the pastors of the branch ministries both home and abroad. Statements were made in public that the old ways of looking at these topics were no more. But behind the scenes there were a group of pastors, who didn’t want to implement these changes. They liked the former perspectives especially on church authority as it gave them utmost power over the local assembly. It began to become obvious to those, who were involved with the rewriting of the former doctrines that approval of these changes by many in the hierarchy was only made by lip service in order to better the image of the ministry to both the assembly and the community. While it appeared that the authoritarian ways were over and a willingness to allow questions whereby any teaching could be tested, this was soon uncovered as not being an acceptable approach. Meetings involving many pastors, where issues were allowed to be presented, turned divisive when questions were asked. Those who asked them were considered as being unsupportive and were labeled as being troubled makers. Eventually, those whose doctrinal changes on church authority appeared to have been accepted left the church. Many of whom had been involved with this church for over fifteen years.

       What can we learn from all this?

       False teaching whether foundation or not can affect the spiritual welfare of those in the assembly. It can bring about a false sense of entitlement by those in leadership to the abuse of those to whom they should be serving. It can encourage sinful behavior, which instead of being addressed in a biblical manner, is seen as being rightful action before God. Instead of allowing dialogue (testing; questioning) there is suspicion. Instead of accountability there is disregard as to how others are treated and thus affected. I think that this attitude is a lot more prevalent in many churches today that most of us even know about.

       If you would bear with me, I would like to present to you one more example of non-foundational teaching, which I believe if it were properly addressed would resolve many of the conflicts in the church today in respect to spiritual growth.

       I have attended many Christian churches over the course of my walk with God. One thing I have noticed was something that was noticed by the apostle Paul, and concerning which he gave instruction to the saints at Galatia.

       Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:3-5)

       But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.                                        

       Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:22-26)

       Paul questioned them and asked, are you so foolish (irrational)?Having begun in the Spirit (of the initial entrance of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of the Galatian Christians when they put their trust in the Lord Jesus) are you now made perfect (the state of spiritual maturity) by the flesh (by means of self-effort) in an attempt to obey an outward legalistic system of works? The Galatians were turning away from the teaching and the reality of the ministry of the Spirit and were attempting to adhere to a religious system, the Mosaic Law, that kept them busy with ceremonial performances, observance of days and festivals, distinction of meats, and other matters of ceremonial prescription. In most Christian Churches, there are tenets of the Mosaic Law some of which born again believers are asked to obey (e.g. tithing; the giving of firstfruits; observing the 7^th Day Sabbath as the day for worship; obedience to the Ten Commandments). I would be amiss to say that any teaching using the Old Testament scriptures is not for our benefit.

       For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

       To the contrary, Paul said that those things, which were written in earlier times (in the Old Testament), were written for our learning (to teach us), the purpose of which was so that the New Testament believer might keep on having hope through patience (steadfastness) in the face of adversities and comfort (encouragement) of the scriptures (through the remarkable examples of such). So the Old Testament scriptures are not to be discarded, but appreciated especially in respect to their fulfillment of the coming Messiah. However, the born-again Christian is not under obligation to obey any of the tenets of the Law for salvation or sanctification (for growing spiritually) as evidenced by the admonition given to the Gentile Christians in the book of Acts.

       And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (Acts 15:3-5, 24)

       Well, if this is the case, how does a believer grow spiritually? I think this is the dilemma facing many Christian churches. They preach the gospel, and those who respond to it receive the indwelling Spirit along with a bundle of other blessings, but how to grow spiritually is unclear. So what happens is, there is a tendency to instruct the believers to obey certain tenets of the Mosaic Law, because this at least provides something tangible in respect to their walk with God. In effect what has happened is both Jew and Gentile Christians obey God the way the nation of Israel did during the dispensation of the Jews. In many cases there is a definite desire to want to experience the peace and joy of the Spirit without really understanding what the protocol is for this to take place.

       How does a believer experience the fruit of the Holy Spirit?

       …but be filled with the Spirit; (Ephesians 5:18b)

       By being dependent on the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who was to rule their spiritual life as its active principle.

       How is this accomplished?

       And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)

       But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected:hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John 2:5)

       By having a renewed mind, which causes the love of God to be produced within by the Holy Spirit, and be exemplified to others.

       This renewed mind is a mind that is reflective of the thoughts which describe the new person we have been made to be at salvation. If the believer commits sin (mental, verbal, overt) then they can recover the filling of the Spirit by confessing it to God the Father, and to avoid continuing in these sinful ways they are instructed to choose to reflect upon God’s way of thinking in this particular area of human weakness or strength.

       In conclusion, teaching on salvation and/or sanctification is no small matter. When the foundational truths of the Christian faith are not being taught from wherever or whomever, then run baby run, get out of there. When the foundational truths are being taught, but the non-foundational truths are based on a system of religion, you have to make a decision as to how much you can tolerate. Some churches provide excellent teachings on spiritual growth while maintaining a minimal requirement of observing something in respect to the Mosaic Law, which usually has to do with some observance (e.g. tithing).

Follow this series: on-line at

Weekly Messages: https://www.blockislandtimes.com/affiliate/block-island-christian-fellowship/12074

Author Page: https://www.facebook.com/James-Rondinone-560602797425740/

Website: http://www.makingtheonerightchoice.com/