A Time to Sow … and a Time to Tear
Originally posted by IBD Vice President Matthew J Coombe on mjcoombe.com
What is the demarcation between orthodoxy and heresy? Or that, when believers disagree about various dogma and doctrine at what point does one claim “heresy” and discontinue fellowship? Before answering this question, it must be stated that the idea of dis-fellowship should only be applied to believers. If this standard was applied to unbelievers or people who have no consistent and reliable information about Jesus and the Bible, why would we suppose them to be anything less then heretics? Further, if there was no fellowship with such people, how would they learn and know the truth? Thus, if a unbeliever holds to an errant view of Jesus it should not be faulted on that person, but rather, with meekness and fear correct the view.
The believer is held to a much higher standard. It is difficult in this age to refute errant views of “Christianity” because Christianity has become a a synonym for “theism.” In this, we often hear people say, “well I’m a Christian who believes….” And then they make some horrible exegesis from scripture or emote concerning some current ethical issue. So then, the point of this blog is to answer the question, “to what can the Christian say, ‘I believe…’” and it still correspond with orthodoxy?
The primary, essential credentials for orthodoxy are the fundamentals of the faith. This is minimal Christianity. If one does not hold to these, they are not, by any means, a true born-again Christian. These fundamentals are as follows:
- The inerrancy of the Scriptures
- The virgin birth of Jesus
- The deity of Christ
- The bodily resurrection of Jesus
- The immanent return of Jesus
Of these, there is only one I have any leniency on and that is inerrancy of Scripture. However, I am only lenient to the point that the other four fundamentals of the faith can still be gleaned and defended. If the Bible becomes so errant that the deity of Christ has become forfeit such a view of Scripture is detrimental. On the other hand, if one feels the Scriptures are completely accurate save a few historical or cultural datum I may not believe that either (although this view also upholds the other 4 points).
Some cults and various man-made religions claim to hold to these, but this is only to maintain the guise and stability of true Christianity. Over the course of the next few days I will be writing on each of the fundamentals, clearly defining them so as to avoid this cultic “bandwagoning.”
As for now, allow me to finish this thought. If anyone does not hold to these fundamentals, I would really question their relative Christianity. Now, as stated before, people often refer to themselves as “Christians” when what they really mean is theist. The reason I make this distinction is that if one claims to be a Christian, they are soldered to very specific views about the Bible, Jesus and the other fundamentals—any strays in these areas cause the erosion of Christianity into finite human religion.
Besides the fundamentals there is also a moral reasons to break bounds. Paul clarifies this when he wrote to the Corinthian Church:
“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges.”
Paul claims that people professing to be believers who live in immorality give us Biblical grounds to no longer have fellowship with them. However, I’ve seen this taken too far. There are some Christians who won’t have fellowship with non-beleivers because of immorality. We must remember, it is not the healthy that need a doctor but the sick.
The freedom of Christian choice concerning the morality of actions must be based on the Bible. If someone claims, “I am a Christian who believes it is okay for me to have sex with my boyfriend.” This is beyond the scope of choice given to the believer. It is clear that any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. If an act or the idea of it is not forbidden in scripture, and it ultimately leads to the good, one is free to partake in it.
Bottom line, if one does not hold to the fundamentals or is living in immorality they are not in a position to be in proper fellowship.
But aren’t those fundamentals a bit arbitrary? There are many who would say that all “born again” (a can of worms itself) Christians believe in 6-day creationism. What stops them from doing that?
At the turn of last century, in response to German higher criticism Christianity responded with a set of works known as “the fundamentals.” These works, in conjunction with what the saints had classicaly defended, gave Christiandom a solid base as to what was crucial and what was not. Arbitrary? hardly. These have been central issues of Christian apologetics starting with responses to the early arian and gnostic heresies that arose in the 1st century to the modern kingdom of the cults.
Further, if holding to 6-day creation was sufficient for saving faith, then Jews, muslims, mormons, seventh day adventists, and myriad of other cults would likewise be “Christians.” But since this is obviously not the case, i would reject such a view that claims that hold to 6day creation results in a “born again.”
Evenmoreso, many prominent christian scholars (who love the LORD dearly and dedicate their lives to bring in God’s kingdom) do not hold to 6 days of Creation. If this definition stood, a muslim is a christian but someone like J.P mooreland is not???
So to answer your question, nothing stops people from “doing that” but they have no classical, biblical, or theological backing that such a view is required for salvation.
for love and peace, Matthew J
Was C. S. Lewis a born-again Christian? As far as I know, he didn’t believe in the inerrancy.
Also, why is it required for one to believe in the IMMINENT return of Christ in order to be a true Christian?
Actually, if the definition of imminent is taken as “could happen any moment”, it seems to me that one who believes in the post-trib or mid-trib rapture can’t believe in the imminent return of Christ unless (s)he believes that the tribulation is already going on.
AS mentioned in the entry, the one factor i have the least problem with holding irrevocably to is the innerancy of scriptures. C.S might not have believed in inerrancy, but none of the essentials of the Christian faith were lost. He still believed that Jesus was the son of God, died for the sins of the world and so on. The only time an errant view of scripture is problematic is when such issues are lost.
As for the imminent return, despite ones eschatalogical views, one should remember the final words of revelation, “behold i am coming quickly,” and it is the job of the Church (through the power of the Holy spirit) to prepare the world for such a return. Immanent return is as much about ecclesiology and evangelism as it is about eschatology. And it is fundamental.
-for love and peace, Matthew J
[You might enjoy this item which I recently found on the internet. Lord bless.]
PRETRIB RAPTURE SECRECY
by Dave MacPherson
The word “secrecy” when applied to Christ’s return can refer to two different things: time and visibility. Before 1830 the only coming Christians looked for was the “every eye shall see him” second advent to earth – secret only in point of time.
Enter Margaret Macdonald in 1830. She saw “the one taken and the other left” before “THE WICKED” [Antichrist] will “be revealed” – and added that her pretrib rapture would not be “seen by the natural eye” but only by “those who have the light of God within.” Her rapture was doubly secret: at an unknown day and hour and also invisible to “outsiders.”
Desperate to eliminate Margaret as the pretrib originator and the Irvingites as the first public teachers of pretrib, Darby defender Thomas Ice foolishly claims that they taught a secret POSTTRIB coming even though he knows that when Hal Lindsey teaches “one taken” etc. before the Antichrist “is revealed” Lindsey is expressing the kernel of the pretrib view – what MM and the Irvingites clearly taught before Darby did! Google “X-Raying Margaret” and “Edward Irving is Unnerving” to see why they are properly labeled “pretrib.”)
As early as June 1832, Irving’s journal taught that only “to those who are watching and praying…will Christ be manifested…as the morning star. To the rest of the church, and to the world, this first appearance will be…unintelligible.” (“Present State of Prophetic Knowledge” etc., p. 374)
Always trailing and “borrowing” quietly from the Irvingites who in turn had “borrowed” from Margaret, Darby in 1845 finally sounded like them when he wrote that “the bright and morning Star…is the sweet and blessed sign to them that watch…And such is Christ before He appears [at the final advent to earth]. The Sun will arise on the world….The star is before the [Sun], the joy of those who watch. The unwakeful world, who sleep in the night, see it not.” (“Thoughts on the Apocalypse,” p. 167)
And Lindsey’s “Late Great Planet Earth,” p. 143, says that “the second coming is said to be visible to the whole earth (Revelation 1:7). However, in the Rapture. only the Christians see Him – it’s a mystery, a secret.”
My bestselling book “The Rapture Plot” (available at online stores including Armageddon Books) has 300 pages of such documentation and proves that Margaret was the first to “see” a secret, pretrib rapture, that the Irvingites soon echoed her in their journal (which Darby admitted he avidly read), and that Darby was last on all of the crucial aspects of dispensationalism.
Shockingly, all of the earliest pretrib development rested solely on unclear OT and NT types and symbols and NOT on clear Biblical statements. Margaret’s rapture was inspired by Rev. 11’s “two witnesses.” And her “secret visibility” rested on the “types” of Stephen, Paul, and John – all of whom saw or heard what others couldn’t see or hear.
For 30 years Darby’s pretrib basis was the rapture of Rev. 12’s “man child” – actually his plagiarism of Irving’s usage of this “pretrib” symbol eight years earlier!
As I said at the start, the “second advent to earth” is secret in point of time with its unknown “day and hour,” as Christ stated. Pretribs assert that if Christ returns for the church after the tribulation, we could count down the days and figure out the actual date of His return – which would contradict Christ’s words.
But pretribs deliberately ignore the fact that Christ said that the tribulation days will be shortened – and He didn’t reveal the length of the shortening!
Our opponents also assume that the “watch” verses prove the “any-moment imminence” of Christ’s return. But do they? II Peter 3:12 says we are to be “looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God” which all premills claim is at least 1000 years ahead of us and therefore hardly “imminent”! What’s the difference between “watching for” and “looking for”?
Another gimmick has pretribs saying “Would you want Jesus to return at any moment and find out you’re sinning?” But Jesus ALREADY knows all about us! And the Holy Spirit, who’s also God, is ALREADY here (Rom. 8:27)!
You have just learned a few of the many secrets that the Secret Rapture Gang has hidden for a long time. Evidently they have forgotten Luke 12:2’s warning that “there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed”!
PS – For the ultimate in uncovered secrets, see engines like Google and type in “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty.”
PPS – While evangelicals stay largely asleep while waiting for their 180-year-old rapture, the shmutzy-mouth subversives of the world (e.g., movie moguls at awards ceremonies) invent new ways to create and unite even more tailgating, boombox-blasting, four-headlights-blinding members of the FFA (Future Followers of the Antichrist). For some related insights Yahoo “backstabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin)” which is found in a Letterman item.