Featured The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"

I merely used "Christian cult" because that is considered to be the worst epitaph that can be applied to professed Christians as a person, church or denomination and "let him be accursed" is the worst condemnatory statement the Bible has to apply to professed Christians. So if "accursed" is not as bad as "Christian cult" than what Biblical epitaph can equal it if that is the worst the bible has to offer. If it is as bad as "Christian cult" then what's the difference?

Finally, eternal security is inseparable from the Biblical doctrine of justification as much as the repudiation of eternal security is inseparable from the doctrine of justification by works. So if Galatians 1:8-9 is applicable to the doctrine of justification by works then it is equally applicable to those who repudiate eternal security.

Excellent exegetical fact!

 

Can you find a person, church or denomination that repudiates the eternal security of true believers that holds to the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS? I don't know of any and I have never read or heard of any. If there are some they are rare birds indeed. Is it possible? Well, I guess anything is possible but not likely. If that kind of combination exists in a mind it is oxymoronic and completely inconsistent and contradictory.

Can you find a person, church or denomination that embraces the eternal security of the true believer and repudiates justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS. If such exist they are equally rare birds. Is it possible? Well, I guess anything is possible but no likely. If that combination exists in a mind it is oxymoronic or completely inconsistent and contradictory.

What I have said and continue to say is that the doctrine of eternal security of the true believer is the inseparable consequence of believing in justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works just as the repudiation of eternal security of true believer is the inseparable consequence of repudiation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works or to say it in a positive way, the belief in justification by works.

Galatians 1:8-9 is in the context of Galatians 1-5 directed toward those who teach justification by works which is "another gospel." Repudiation of eternal security is the repudiation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works. Therefore, Galatians 1:8-9 applies to both the positive form of justification by works which is "another gospel" as much as it applies to the negative form of repudiation of eternal security security of the true believer as they are two sides of the same coin. In other words, the repudiation of eternal security of the TRUE believer is the repudiation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works and is the embracing of justification by works as the only possible basis for a true believer to lose their justification is that it is based upon something they either do or fail to do and that is called works.

No, I don't believe there is more than one true gospel between the pages of Genesis to Revelation. However, I do not beleive the gospel has inherent power to save anyone as it can come "in word only" without power and without the Spirit (1 Thes. 1:4-5). So the "true gospel" does not equal "the power of God."

Yes, it would be unfair to make that conclusion as saved people can be led astray as were the Galatians for a while. That is why I consistently was careful to point out that the Apostle said "let them be" instead of saying "they are" accursed. That is, those preaching another gospel should be treated as such and considered as such due to what they are preaching. Paul told the Galatians who embraced that teaching that he would regard them that way as long as they continued embracing that doctrine and very pointedly questioned the genuineness of their salvation because the were holding to that doctrine. Paul is simply saying that such should be assumed to be lost as long as they embrace and/or preach that doctrine simply because that doctrine repudiates the sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work.

God can save a Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church through the mere reading of the gospel in spite of the explanations and doctrinal repudiations of Christ by the Church. The "power" of the gospel is by divine fiat or God empowering the word as a revelation in the heart (2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Thes. 1;4-5) whenever and wherever he chooses. However, that does not remove the "accursed" epitaph from the instrument who does not believe "the truth of the gospel" and by his teaching willing perverts it.

So Galatians 1:8-9 does not say "they are accursed" but only "let them be" with regard to the proper response by his readers toward those who teach that doctrine. If they regard them as such then that will lead them to treat them as such by rebuking and if necessary removing them from their fellowship. Such preachers that deny the "truth of the gospel" do no prevent God from empowering what gospel content they read from the scripture to save in spite of their perversion of it in the remainder of their preaching. So "another gospel" does not mean there is any other true gospel , but refers to their perverted presentation or explanation or teaching of the gospel with regard to the inclusion of works as far as the book of Galatians is concerned.

False doctrine is usually conceived by redefining pivotal words, redefining Biblical lines of distinction or by making absolutes into relatives and/or finalities into transitions. No other doctrine has been attacked more furiously than the Biblical doctrine of justification in these pivotal areas.

 

It is one thing to be ignorant or to be in the state of indecision or questioning the eternal security of a true believer and quite another thing to adamantly oppose and explicitly deny it. Are you sure these men adamantly opposed and explicitly denied that teaching? If so, then they should be treated by bible believers precisely as instructed by Paul regardless of public or personal opinions.

It is something like the trinity. A new believer does not have to understand the doctrine of the trinity to be saved. He can have questions or be in a state of indecision but if he adamantly opposes and condemns the doctrine of the Trinity, thus denying the deity of Christ or the Spirit of God I don't think he can be saved because Jesus says that "this is eternal life that they might know the only true God and Jesus Christ" - Jn. 17:3 and those who repudiate the doctrine of Christ neither know God or the Son.

If you are speaking of the doctrine of eternal security of the true believer I do not know of any other view than being "eternally secure" as opposed to "conditional security." Those who attempt to combine the two by saying a believer is eternal secure unless he willfully chooses to repudiate Christ is oxymoronic as repudiation of Christ a sin and sin is an evil work. To say one is eternally secure as long as they believe is equally oxymoronic because unbeleif is a sin and sin is an evil work. Therefore, both of these versions are simply denials of justification by grace and are just variations of the doctrine of justification by works.

If you are speaking of my doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works then the only other view that I am aware is simply a repudiation of this doctrine by redefining one or more of the terms "justification" or "grace" or "faith" or "without works" so that works performed in and through our own bodies is made inclusive thus confusing progressive sanctification with justification and imparted righteousness with imputed righteousness. In other words, it is either or but cannot be both as they are mutually exclusive of each other as much as grace is of works (Rom. 11:6).

If you are defining imputed righteousness as spiritual union with Christ then you are confusing imputed with imparted righteousness and repudiating that it is the works of Christ completed in his own physical body that justifies us but rather works of righteousness imparted and performed in and through our physical bodies thus confusing sanctification with justification.

All of these alternative options are nothing more or less than perversions of "the truth of the gospel" and are various forms of justification by works performed in and through us and thus are various manifestations of justification by works performed by us regardless of the power or source from which they are originating in and/or through us.

The true doctrine of justification is based exclusively on the personal obedience of Christ in his own body which fully satisfies all of God's demands against the elect. The doctrine of justification by works is making the transition from what is performed in the physical body of Christ to what is performed in and through our physical bodies as inclusive in justification. It makes no difference if those works in and through us originate from the Spirit of God and His power or not as they are works through us rather than in and through the physical body of Christ alone.

 

I don't think we are on the same page, but just to be clear, are you saying they define the doctrine of justification to be inclusive of works and make no distinction between sanctification and justification or do they simply claim what James is teaching, that profession of justification should not be accepted among men where there is no manifest evidence of good works?

 

As I understand your position, you do not confuse justification with sanctification or make works inclusive of justification, but you are simply saying that those justified will be manifested by good works?

 

The words "cult" and "cultish" are not found in scripture. They are human inventions to describe Christian and non-Christian groups that are opposed to what many Christians claim to be standards of orthodoxy including to those who have sources of authority in addition to the scriptures based on the doctrine of on going revelation (e.g. Prophets, prophetic writings). The largest faction of Christendom believes in ongoing revelation and thus claim sources of authority in addition to scripture through their prophets. Roman Catholicism for example has loads of additional revelation from their many visions and messages from Mary, the Pope sitting excatheda. Pentecostalism has a gazillion prophets and apostles with ongoing extra revelation to the scriptures. All the denominations of the Restoration movement of the 19-20th century are based upon prophetic revelations in addition to scripture. 70% of professed Christendom easily fits within the category of those who deny cessation of revelation but believe in ongoing revelation in addition to the scriptures.

What I have done is to reject the uninspired definitions and unbiblical basis (extra biblical revelation as final authority, rejection of Trinity, etc.) invented by men for expressing the strongest condemnation against professed Christendom ("Christian cult") and replaced it with the clearly stated Biblical criteria (doctrine of justification by works, thus preaching "another gospel", denial that Christ came in the flesh, etc.) as the Biblical basis for using the strongest Biblical based condemnation expressed against professed Christendom. However, the Biblical based criteria and the strongest Biblical based condemnation is rejected by you and others to be equivalent to your uninspired classifications and terms of condemnation as you refuse to identify those who hold the very doctrine the Bible expresses the greatest condemnation against while reserving your greatest condemnation for what the Bible nowhere explicitly expresses its greatest condemnation against.

I am simply rejecting the traditions of men and redefining "Christian cult" to be equal with the basis for what the Scriptures express its strongest condemnation against professed Christendom. One such false doctrine that has the Biblical based justification for the Bible's strongest condemnation against professed Christendom is toward those who embrace justification by works or "preach another gospel."

 

Those who preach "another gospel" are those who make no distinction between justification and sanctification. It is those who claim that justification is inclusive of righteousness performed in and through the believer while the true doctrine of justification restricts the obedience/works that justify believers to what Jesus did in his own physical body. Any doctrine that attempts to make a transition between the obedience of Christ performed in his own body to the obedience performed in the believers body and calls that combination "justification" is preaching "another gospel" and falls under the condemnation of Gal. 1:8-9.

Therefore, those who teach that spiritual union with Christ whereby the righteousness of Christ is being worked in and through the believer's own body is part of the basis or is the basis for justification are preaching "another gospel." This is the premiere doctrine of the SDA.

 

The reason some are up in arms against the Biblical based definition of what is to be regarded the worst from of professed Christendom, those who embrace justification by works, is because the vast majority of professed Christendom embraces this false doctrine in its variant forms of expression. The Catholic churches (Rome, Orthodox) alone make up over 60% of professed Christendom and they devoutly embrace this false doctrine. All the denominations that make up the 19-20th century restoration movement embrace this false doctrine. The vast majority of Pentecostalism which is the fasting growing "Christian" denomination on earth right now embraces this doctrine.

Therefore, those who apply this Biblical condemnation against professed Christendom who embrace this false doctrine find themselves in a small minority against the majority of Christendom. They find themselves condemning such with the most offensive condemnation the Bible has to offer. They find themselves condemning many sincere and devout professed believers in Christ and many denominations which hold other truths that are dear to their hearts. The epitome of error is that it is always mixed with truths but this is one error (justification by works) that God's Word is unwilling to allow without its strongest condemnation toward those embracing and teaching it. Thus, those who believe in the Biblical doctrine of justification are forced into an uncomfortable minority position if they apply that condemnation to those within Christendom that actually embrace justification by works.

However, this is precisely what Christ and the apostles predicted would characterize the last days - the greatest period of apostasy (Mt. 24:24-25; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-11; 1 Pet. 2:1-8; Lk. 18:8; etc.).

Today it does not matter what men may profess they believe, but it matters what they mean by that profession and how they define Biblical terms. I care not if a person claims to be a "Baptist" or an "evangelical" as it is not the denominational epitaph that makes him a true believer or a orthodox genuine believer, but it is how he defines his terms theologically.

 

As a three year old, I lost my mother and almost lost my own life in house with a gas leak. They rushed me to the nearest hospital (Catholic) where they believed I was not going to make it, and so they called in a Priest who sprinkled me and gave me last rights. My dad was infuriated when he heard what they had done. That is the nearest I have been to the Catholic faith in 66 years.

 

The Galatians were saved people who embraced this false doctrine. So a person can be genuinely saved and embrace this false doctrine. However, that does not free them from the condemnation by God in Galatians 1:8-9.

The "power" of the gospel does not dictate what doctrine saved persons may or may not embrace. It does not prevent them from being condemned and separated by church discipliine for false doctrines that are greviously condemned by Scripture. Whether a man's name is "john Wesley" or "John Doe" makes no difference with God. How much or how little truth that person may or may not embrace makes no difference if they deny this truth as the epitaph and condemnation still apply.