The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"

The Biblicist said:

You are a Greek student as I am and you know that in Galatians 1:6-8 Paul uses two different Greek terms both equally translated "another." He does say there is a heteros gospel, meaning another kind of gospel, as we use the same Greek word to form the word "hetero-sexual". Then there is the Greek term allos which means one of the same kind. So there is in fact "another kind" of gospel preached by his opponents but there is no other gospel of the same kind Paul preached.

The preaching of the other kind of gospel only produces a two-fold more child of hell than the one preaching it (if indeed that is what his profession is based upon).

As I said previously the "power" of the gospel does not prevent anyone from embracing "another gospel" and does not mean those who embrace it are lost as the Galatians embraced it. However, at the same time as long as they were embracing it, Paul began to treat them as lost, challenging their salvation. In fact, he challenged it so much, that those who reject eternal security find many of their proof texts in Galatians in the words of Paul toward these believers. Neither does the fact they were true believers make void the words "let them be accursed" as Paul is regarding or treating them as such not because he knows the true state of their souls but because he knows the true state of the gospel they are embracing and teaching which is void of any power to save. Therefore the assumption is if one embraces that gospel and preaches that gospel then one must assume that gospel represents their true state or they would not be preaching it and so true Christians should regard and treat them as such "let them be" until they repudiate it and demonstrate by embracing the true gospel that their soul reflects it rather than that of a false gospel.

I don't believe there are "numerous" gospels out there but only two - two basic ways (Mt. 7:13-14) and one is very wide which accomodates variations of that one way of works.

Click to expand...

I don’t think Paul is making a distinction between ἕτερο and ἄλλος and he explains (I believe) his intent in the passage itself.

Paul is using ἕτερο ςεὐαγγέλιον (a different gospel) to mean something other than the gospel. I believe that Paul is pointing back to the Law, and justification through the Law as this is the struggle of the Galatians. In Chapter 5 we see that they were running well but hindered from obeying (“a little leaven leavens the whole lump). Paul has confidence that they will not be led astray (although he acknowledges that some may have). But what they were wrestling with was returning to the Law and a return to bondage (5:7-15).When we read ςεὐαγγέλιον here we should think in terms of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that the kingdom is coming (and has come) and all that is associated with the Kingdom in contrast to the Jewish expectation and anticipation of Paul's day. So, ἕτερο ςεὐαγγέλιον is no gospel at all because it is denouncing the gospel itself (the gospel that the Kingdom has come is replaced with going back to Judaism, the Galatians are in danger of leaving their new freedom to return to their old bondage).

This ἕτερο ςεὐαγγέλιον is not a "twist" on the same gospel. It is, in fact, not the gospel at all but instead is a message of bondage.

JonC δοῦλος said:

I don’t think Paul is making a distinction between ἕτερο and ἄλλος and he explains (I believe) his intent in the passage itself.

Paul is using ἕτερο ςεὐαγγέλιον (a different gospel) to mean something other than the gospel. I believe that Paul is pointing back to the Law, and justification through the Law as this is the struggle of the Galatians. In Chapter 5 we see that they were running well but hindered from obeying (“a little leaven leavens the whole lump). Paul has confidence that they will not be led astray (although he acknowledges that some may have). But what they were wrestling with was returning to the Law and a return to bondage (5:7-15).When we read ςεὐαγγέλιον here we should think in terms of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that the kingdom is coming (and has come) and all that is associated with the Kingdom in contrast to the Jewish expectation and anticipation of Paul's day. So, ἕτερο ςεὐαγγέλιον is no gospel at all because it is denouncing the gospel itself (the gospel that the Kingdom has come is replaced with going back to Judaism, the Galatians are in danger of leaving their new freedom to return to their old bondage).

This ἕτερο ςεὐαγγέλιον is not a "twist" on the same gospel. It is, in fact, not the gospel at all but instead is a message of bondage.

Click to expand...

Then why does he call it another "gospel" if it is not another "gospel"? You are denyng the obvious distinctions between those two very different Greek terms and then denying it is what Paul says it is another "gospel". What is your agenda for denying the obvious. I can't see any objectivity here in your exegesis.

If I followed your kind of exegesis anywhere else in scripture I could change the meaning of any passage I wanted by simply ignoring words that differ and denying the very words being used.

The Biblicist said:

Then why does he call it another "gospel" if it is not another "gospel"? You are denyng the obvious distinctions between those two very different Greek terms and then denying it is what Paul says it is another "gospel". What is your agenda for denying the obvious. I can't see any objectivity here in your exegesis.

Click to expand...

'
Why does he say "another one" and then say "not there there is another one" if it is?

We warn of false churches....ever think of the fact that those aren't churches at all? Why do we say it?

I also do not see you being objective. If we allow Galatians to provide it's own context, I can't see how you could help but see that they were wrestling with the gospel kingdom and the bondage of Judaism. You are reading your theology into the text. What I provided to you was what Paul says in Galatians 5 of what that church was experiencing and what he was dealing with in that letter.

If I followed your kind of exegesis here on any other Biblical passage I could make it mean what I wanted to mean by simply denying words that differ in meaning from each other and denying words being used? You can't expect any Bible student to accept that kind of exegetical method can you?

JonC δοῦλος said:

'
Why does he say "another one" and then say "not there there is another one" if it is?

Click to expand...

From the English version you have a point but from the Greek text your point vanishes into thin air.

JonC δοῦλος said:

'We warn of false churches....ever think of the fact that those aren't churches at all? Why do we say it?

Click to expand...

Just because the are "false" churches does not mean they are not churches (ekklesia) or congregations. False refers to their doctrine and practice not to their existence as assembles.

The Biblicist said:

If I followed your kind of exegesis here on any other Biblical passage I could make it mean what I wanted to mean by simply denying words that differ in meaning from each other and denying words being used? You can't expect any Bible student to accept that kind of exegetical method can you?

Click to expand...

I do admit that my interpretation of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews is influenced by F.F. Bruce. So blame him for the poor scholarship, not me. I shy away from any interpretation original to my mind .

The Biblicist said:

From the English version you have a point but from the Greek text your point vanishes into thin air.

Click to expand...

You mean apart from context. And then I would expect ἄλλος. The Hebrew religion was the gospel anticipated. The gospel is now the kingdom of God coming and has come. Judaism extended beyond the Cross is/was a misinterpretation of the gospel anticipated. The Object of their religion has come.

The Biblicist said:

Just because the are "false" churches does not mean they are not churches (ekklesia) or congregations. False refers to their doctrine and practice not to their existence as assembles.

Click to expand...

In Greek, it could also refer to a group of experts...e.g., a group of men devoted to math. But we are not Greek, and this is a Baptist board. An assembly of Mormons do not constitute a local church assembly in my mind (and in my vocabulary) any more than a SSM constitutes a marriage.

And, as we continue, I do want to be clear. I think that we both believe that denying eternal security is a false teaching (and I still add that some applications of the doctrine are false), but we differ in defining what Paul is speaking of in terms of "another gospel". So we agree mostly here, but disagree on definitions.

Perhaps the what was actually going on in that church (in Galatians) determines what Paul did mean. From reading the letter, I believe the church had become legalistic and was integrating Judaism into their church (similar to Hebrews). So I do read "another gospel" to be pointing to the Law, and if they were not wrestling with Judaism but other doctrines slightly "off skew" then I may be reading it wrong.

JonC δοῦλος said:

I do admit that my interpretation of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews is influenced by F.F. Bruce. So blame him for the poor scholarship, not me. I shy away from any interpretation original to my mind .

Click to expand...

There are many scholars that point the difference between allos and heretos in this passage as I do. I never confine myself to one scholar's interpretation of anything.

The Biblicist said:

There are many scholars that point the difference between allos and heretos in this passage as I do. I never confine myself to one scholar's interpretation of anything.

Click to expand...

Neither do I. I just appreciate some over others. F.F. Bruce is not my primary "go to" commentary. I like him, but there are more contemporary authors as well.

I think that the context dictates how we interpret this "other gospel". I think that the difference in word choices are not important here. The context is a legalistic church turning back to bondage, and this constitutes "another gospel" which is not a gospel at all. I do not believe that there is very much difference between Galatians and Hebrews in terms of turning back to Judaism to an "empty faith" which is no faith at all.

JonC δοῦλος said:

You mean apart from context.

Click to expand...

No, I don't mean apart from context. The context is clear that is it is the message of the cross of Christ plus circumcision not mere Christ rejecting Judaism of that era. They are preaching Christ plus works for justification. So the context supports the distinction between allos and heteros. If your contention were true he would not even use the word "gospel" to describe their message but would say "if any man preach justification by works let him be accursed" and forego even using the term "gospel.' However, what they preached contained the truth of the cross PLUS works just as many today preach the cross plus works.

JonC δοῦλος said:

' And then I would expect ἄλλος. The Hebrew religion was the gospel anticipated. The gospel is now the kingdom of God coming and has come. Judaism extended beyond the Cross is/was a misinterpretation of the gospel anticipated. The Object of their religion has come.

Click to expand...

No, the gospel has NEVER been about the coming of any kingdom but has always been about the rule of God in the heart by repentance and faith in Christ before the cross (Acts 10:43) as well as after the cross (Heb. 4:1). True Judaism preached the truth of the gospel (Acts 10:43) as it was the gospel of all the prophets. What we have in the New Testament period is an apostate form of Judaism that was trying to be included in the gospel of Jesus as the Christ. New Testament Judaism was a legalistic gospel of justification by faith in the coming Messiah plus good works. Wright is wrong about the "justification by faith without works" referring to a social ethnic covenant relationship that beleived in the right way of salvation. Nobody reading the gospels could possible swallow such a lie as he is trying to pawn off as the legalistic mindset is clearly portrayed by the Pharisees, the pharisee's prayer, the Pharisee's question about what they could "do" to obtain eternal life and the rich young ruler.


I

JonC δοῦλος said:

'n Greek, it could also refer to a group of experts...e.g., a group of men devoted to math. But we are not Greek, and this is a Baptist board. An assembly of Mormons do not constitute a local church assembly in my mind (and in my vocabulary) any more than a SSM constitutes a marriage.

Click to expand...

A person may not be a true Christian but we still call him a Christian by profession. We may not recognize a JW assembly as a true New Testament assembly but they are nevertheless a professed Christian assembly and recognized as a "Christian cult."

However, I agree with you that there are certain truths and practices that must be present for any assembly to be recognized as a true New Testament assembly.

JonC δοῦλος said:

'And, as we continue, I do want to be clear. I think that we both believe that denying eternal security is a false teaching (and I still add that some applications of the doctrine are false), but we differ in defining what Paul is speaking of in terms of "another gospel". So we agree mostly here, but disagree on definitions.

Click to expand...

I guess we have to agree to disagree agreeably then.

JonC δοῦλος said:

I think that the context dictates how we interpret this "other gospel". I think that the difference in word choices are not important here.

Click to expand...

Lets be clear here. Your position depends on making the word choices of no significance.

JonC δοῦλος said:

' The context is a legalistic church turning back to bondage, and this constitutes "another gospel" which is not a gospel at all.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is oxymoronic as you say it is "gospel" and then you say it is no"gospel. Your statement proves the need of distinction shown by the Greek text. It is indeed "another GOSPEL" but is not the TRUE "gospel" and that is the meaning of the Greek text and the immediate context as they were not rejecting jesus as the Christ or the cross but simply ADDING to it and that is where it became a "false" gospel.

JonC δοῦλος said:

' I do not believe that there is very much difference between Galatians and Hebrews in terms of turning back to Judaism to an "empty faith" which is no faith at all.

Click to expand...

I think there are some very significant differences. First, the Galatians had been deceived by false teaching whereas the hebrews were motivated by persecution and trials. Second, the Hebrews were choosing to reject the truth they embraced whereas the Galatians were deceived into rejecting the truth they first embraced. Third, they were going back to the Old Testament gospel which did not reject Christ (Heb. 4:1) but now had rejected Jesus as that Christ.

Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree agreeable.

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 4pm Pacific, this thread will be closed.

Well, before the good Squire shuts this thread down, I would like to make one last point which I think is significant.

The gospel is not equal to "power" and therefore the gospel can be preached and no power at all asserted as it can come "in word only" without power (1 The.1:4-5).

So the evidence of the true gospel is not power but the determining evidence is TRUTH CONTENT" whether it comes in power or not. Power does make the gospel any more true than without power.

So, "another gospel" does not have to be no gospel simply because it lacks power. Indeed, demonic power may accompany it. But whether or not it is accompanied with demonic power what makes it false is not the presence or absence of power but its CONTENT of error.

This is why Paul refers to the true gospel in contrast to the false as "THE TRUTH of the gospel" in the book of Galatians.

The Biblicist said:

No, the gospel has NEVER been about the coming of any kingdom but has always been about the rule of God in the heart by repentance and faith in Christ before the cross (Acts 10:43) as well as after the cross (Heb. 4:1).

Click to expand...

And my closing argument is that the gospel has ALWAYS been about the Kingdom of God.

I would ask you to consider that the gospel itself is not centered on man but on God. The gospel is that this kingdom of which Israel has awaited was in their midst (Luke 17;Matthew 3; Mark 1) and it was not what the Jews expected (if you believe that the gospel is merely that we need to believe then perhaps it is not what you have expedted either). Man may enter this Kingdom by being reborn, re-created, transformed...but the gospel is and has always been about the Kingdom and God's own glory rather than how men get there (although this is a part).

JonC δοῦλος said:

And my closing argument is that the gospel has ALWAYS been about the Kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

If you are defining "kingdom" first and foremost as the spiritual "rule" of God then yes the gospel is about repentance from rebellion against the rule of God and faith (submission) in Christ as your Lord. If you are talking about a physical kingdom then that is also included in the gospel as the ultimate hope but is secondary in significance to the spiritual rule of God now in the hearts and lives of men, as the former must precede the latter and must be of more significance then the latter.

JonC δοῦλος said:

I would ask you to consider that the gospel itself is not centered on man but on God.

Click to expand...

I agree fully without reservation or doubt.

JonC δοῦλος said:

The gospel is that this kingdom of which Israel has awaited was in their midst (Luke 17;Matthew 3; Mark 1) and it was not what the Jews expected (if you believe that the gospel is merely that we need to believe then perhaps it is not what you have expedted either).

Click to expand...

I don't agree here. That kingdom was established in Genesis 1:26 and then reestablished in Genesis 3:15 and has been entered by every child of God since Genesis 3:15 to the coming of Christ (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:1-2). What Israel all the prophets awaited was the manifestation of Person of the King of this kingdom professed by faith to serve while the awaited his appearing and of its visible glory establishment on earth. Rebirth has always been present on earth long before the cross (Jn. 3:3-11; Ezek. 44:5-7; "circumcised in heart" etc.)

JonC δοῦλος said:

Man may enter this Kingdom by being reborn, re-created, transformed...but the gospel is and has always been about the Kingdom and God's own glory rather than how men get there (although this is a part).

Click to expand...

No disagreement here! and I will close on that note of agreement.

JamesL said:

Absolutely. Every Calvinist fits that description. Very deceptive tactic of claiming faith alone then slipping in that works are the inevitable fruit of a "true" believer.

On this board, Iconoclast fits that description. On this board, that fraud who calls himself Internet Theologian fits that description.

All you have to do is start talking about the possibility if failure on the part of a believer, and that God is still faithful, and those works mongers abandon any and all "faith alone" rhetoric and start talking just like every SDA - that without works there is no hope of heaven.

Whereas the Arminian will front load the gospel with works, the Calvinist back loads the gospel with works. They both agree that works are an intricate part of our eternal destination.

And they both agree as to the fate of every person. Package looks different on the outside, but same bad surprise on the inside

Click to expand...

It's not amazing that posts like this on "B"B go unchecked and are allowed to stand.

Internet Theologian said:

It's not amazing that posts like this on "B"B go unchecked and are allowed to stand.

Click to expand...

Considering it's the truth, what is there to check?

But just so that it's known beyond the shadow of any doubt, kindly answer....

Do you believe it's possible for someone to go to heaven if he has no works?

An Arminian will answer very shortly "no"
So what's your answer - yes or no?

And like my dad used to say, anything short of yes is no

It's a huge disservice to the public to demolish the meaning of "cult" by equating the Book of Mormon-based LDS church Bible-only Christian churches which hold differing understandings of the Bible. You give real cults cover by smearing "the vast majority of Christian denominations" as cults. What's left to call Mormonism, an Atheist religion that teaches that we, Jesus, and Jesus's dad are supermen.

JamesL said:

Do you believe it's possible for someone to go to heaven if he has no works?

Click to expand...

Please allow me to answer for him. I'll answer that with a resounding 'no', and here's why. Whether we are saved or not, we do works. The works we do are an outpouring of who we are working for. The unregenerate show they are working for Satan via their sinful lifestyle they live day-to-day. The Christian shows they are working for God via their lifestyle they live day-to-day.

Now, the unregenerate show some good works occasionally by helping those in need, being good to others, &c., but the overall picture of their life shows they are not saved. The Christian can show some bad works occasionally by acting out in the flesh, but the overall picture of their life shows they are Christian.

SovereignGrace said:

Please allow me to answer for him. I'll answer that with a resounding 'no', and here's why. Whether we are saved or not, we do works. The works we do are an outpouring of who we are working for. The unregenerate show they are working for Satan via their sinful lifestyle they live day-to-day. The Christian shows they are working for God via their lifestyle they live day-to-day.

Now, the unregenerate show some good works occasionally by helping those in need, being good to others, &c., but the overall picture of their life shows they are not saved. The Christian can show some bad works occasionally by acting out in the flesh, but the overall picture of their life shows they are Christian.

Click to expand...

I'm using "no works" in the same sense that James 2:14 does
What if a man says he has faith, but has "no works"...

Do you believe it's possible for a man to go to heaven if he has no works?


Jesus warned against looking on the outside of a man:
Wolves in sheep's clothing
Whitewashed sepulchres
Hypocrites and brood of vipers

The Pharisee in Jesus' parable in Luke 18 stood and prayed "God, I thank you...." but Jesus said he would have prayed to himself.