Unlike most people, I am a lover of doctrine. Shoot, for a while there I wanted to give Hannegraff a run for his money. You have no idea the hours that Meredith and I debated doctrine. But at some point, I came to realize that while we need to hold fast to doctrine, perhaps forcing it onto people (under threat of unorthodoxy, banishment, division, ect...) might not be as productive. It is hard to convey what exactly I mean here.




I'll agree with you that we need to formulate and hold true to a body of doctrine. And yet I feel that we also need to give some freedom to people in doctrine. Maintain that they are incorrect - but don't judge them - while at the same time work with them to see the light. Perhaps, just perhaps hold more steadfast to the pursuit of truth itself than to what we think the truth might be at time_a.





Brad summed my view up the best:

so henry, if you're premise is we can't judge a person's heart therefore we shouldn't judge whether they are a really a Christian or not, i would say you are correct. even those who with their mouth proclaim one thing, but in their heart proclaim Christ.

With the case of Mormonism, for example, perhaps instead of brushing their faith aside as false and devil-inspired, we say that they say they are seeking Christ, but we have huge problems of what they say Christ is like and what we say Christ is like. Here are the reasons that I say that Christ is like X and I hold firm to those reasons.





I strongly feel that fruitful dialog can be found in that method, rather than swinging at their heads with the sword of orthodoxy. Once we start yelling conclusions at each other from across the shore, no one will venture into the stream to rescue the others.





This is not a condemnation of anyone or their actions. If anything it is what I used to be all about.





I hope that makes sense. Don't hold any specific word combination against me, just ask me to clairfy, b/c some of that up there is poorly worded.

Henry Michael,

As a side note, I did some original language study on "virgin" in relation to the birth of Christ. The Hebrew term, especially in the context of Isaia 7:14 refers primarily to a woman of marriagable age, or a young maiden. But Matthew does not have that meaning in mind in his gospel. He had more in mind the sexual definition of virgin. In Matthew 1:18-25 we have the birth story. Joseph and Mary are betrothed or legally pleged to be married. Unless Marry was sexually active before hand or previously married and divorced, she had to be a sexual virgin. Also the term Matthew uses in v.23 for virgin has more to do with sexuality than with age. Finally, even after taking Mary as his wife, he did not "know" until after the baby was born. The "knowing" here is that of Adam knew Eve and they got Cain, Able, and Seth.





I know that you believe in the virgin birth but that was not my point. My point is that for the person to hold to inerrancy of Scripture, then they must hold to the Virgin birth. Or to be hermeneutically sound and exegetically correct, they must hold to a virgin--one who has never had sexual relations--giving birth to Christ. Just a side note of interest especially heading into Christmas.

I think Brad has it right. There has to be a set of doctrines, propositions, traditions, disciplines that define Christianity. I like the Five Fundamentals personally as a most fundamental description of Christian orthodox doctrine. But the authenticity of that faith is a wholy different matter. No one can really know one's internals. The pastor in Colorado this past month was one example. We can only see what they do and if their life has been changed. But we need that standard to give us the identity of followers of Christ.




Something I preach is that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. But I realize that I have to be careful when I say that because it can be misunderstood and taken out of context. There is still a religious nature to Christianity. While it centers around a relationship, people can think that as long as they have that relationship they are saved. They start to talk like Romans 6:1 and sinning so that grace may abound. But there are still requirements that Christ puts on us that are seen externally. That's why I feel that we must have that definition. We must pray for discernment for that definition and to discern the hearts of our brothers and sisters in Christ and the authenticity of their faith.

i would say there is a difference between perfect beliefs [which no one can have] and 'correct.' i would prefer to use the words 'more pure' over 'correct.' Correct has a connotation that there is only one, singular way to believe a certain doctrine. i think we would all agree that we can disagree on doctrines...but still be called Christians.




even though i'm not crazy about everything he says, hannegraff uses a term when he talks about whether certain beliefs are 'correct' or as i like to say, 'more pure,' and that is: within the pale of orthodoxy. the 5 tenets that hank [imler] puts forth are great starting points of 'orthodoxy', a litmus test so to speak.





[in doing so, even thought it is hard stance to take, this does preclude some exclusivity on the part of Christianity]





to some extent, if what is coming out of one's mouths, which the Bible says is from their heart, is outside of the 'pale,' there seems to be a justified reason to help correct bad theology which may in turn correct the heart [which is the Holy Spirit's doing].





let me be clear, i'm not talking about differing viewpoints within evangelicalism, i'm talking about the bad theology outside of its parameters. [i think we are going to need to be more specific in what we mean by 'bad' or 'incorrect' beliefs that would seemingly disqualify someone from being a Christian]





so henry, if you're premise is we can't judge a person's heart therefore we shouldn't judge whether they are a really a Christian or not, i would say you are correct. even those who with their mouth proclaim one thing, but in their heart proclaim Christ.





truly, the only thing that disqualifies anyone from this is one who has not been saved by Jesus Christ. our job is to evangelize and live and missional lifestyle and pray that God draws men unto Himself.





the problem is we can't know if someone is a Christian exclusively from what is seen on the outside.





My big caveat though: many times it is a strong clue on issue

If someone does not hold to the virgin birth, the first question in my slippery slope if, "How would a person hold that Jesus was divine and a man if there was no virgin birth?"




Well, the vb is a possible way to explain the personhood of Christ, but it does not have to be the only possible.





For instance, one could hold that a miracle took place where only a 4th of Mary and Joeseph's genetic material was transmitted and God supplied the rest. Or, one could say that the body of Jesus was created through the union of J and M and the spirit of Jesus was God.





Another option is to say that we mere mortals do not know how he did it, but merely that Jesus was both God and man while being of two parents. There is a whole lot of other stuff we christians accept on mystery, why not one more?

I wonder about having to hold to the virgin birth for orthodoxy. The OT prophecy was fulfilled in the OT and the word means maiden not virgin.




Also, it was not important enough of a doctrine for Paul, Mark, or John to mention.





While I hold to it, I am at least wondering out loud about making someone hold to it.

What I am asking, is who should we call Christian? Is it only people with perfect beliefs? Is it people who call upon Christ?




I think that your list is an excellent starting point for seeing if a person has correct beliefs. However, show me the person who is completely perfect in their understanding of God.





How "bad" or incorrect of a person who calls upon Christ do you have to be in order to be not called a Christian? What authority do we have to judge the hearts of humans? What council can banish?

I was doing some research on what is called "The Five Fundamentals of Faith." It was a statement released in 1895 at the Niagra Bible Confrence. The five fundamentals are: Deity of Jesus Christ, Virgin Birth, Substitutionary-Penal Atonement, Bodily Resurrection, Inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Would you say that these are a fair minimum standard by which you would measure the orthodoxy of a Christian?

For a more objective view of LDS faith, consider visiting the site http://www.fairlds.org/

I meant to say we are not buddies and golf partners and just hang out and be buds with. I mistyped. Sorry. I really do like this discussion though.

Henry, I really think this is an excellent question or set of questions that you have posed. I say this especially as we are all called to be evangelists to some degree, we might not have the gift but we are all commanded to do it.




I guess I did not very clearly address your question. We both agree that Mormonism is a false religion. I would go so far as to say it is cuoltic in some of its practices and beliefs. We both know that this particular group for us means more than any other particular group of people.





When you quoted me you forgot to read the whole quote. The last sentence in that paragraph is key. I said

I quote Paul in Romans 16:17, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them." Clearly those who have wrong doctrine must be avoided so that the unity of the church, of those who belong to Christ, might be and will be maintained. But I don't think that this text says we don't try to win those with false doctrine back to the true gospel.

We are to not be in close relationship with false teachers. We should be "bowling buddies" or golfing partners with them because they might lead us astray. However this doesn't mean we do not engage them and try to win them back. Paul did that very thing to Peter in Galatians 2. Lord willling there will be restoration. Jesus says if a person is in sin and refuses to leave that sin, even after being confronted several times he is to be excommunicated for the purpose of restoration. That is if the person is a member of the orthodox church, mainline Protestant and Catholic Churches.





But a person outside the church must be dealt with differently because he has not given his life to the Jesus Christ of the Bible. He must first be confronted with the gospel and won into the fold. A homosexual must first be confronted with Jesus and the need to trust him before cleaning him up. Once he has sworne to Jesus (not the church) then we work on his theology, shaping it like Paul tells Timothy to do in 2 Timothy 4:2. We teach him the word patiently and completely with careful instruction so that he can hear God's wisdom and not ours. Once they are a believer in the Gospel, we can go back up to my previous paragraph, you could say.

The question is two-fold HT. The first question is how far into the "orthodox mornomism" is the Mormon? What is that person's actual belief like? Do they adhere to all of the doctrines that we think the Mormon faith adheres to at its highest level? From what I understand, the faith of the local Mormon church is quite different from the higher levels of understanding.




The second issue is how do you go about correcting the Mormon's belief without him tuning you out at the get-go? I mean that is the goal, right? We want to help right the ships? Point them towards God, the sun, and away from the very bright lighthouses. I have a that concern for each soul. Shooting flaming arrows at their boat because of the severity of their course will not turn them about.

Paul in Romans 16:17, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them." Clearly those who have wrong doctrine must be avoided so that the unity of the church, of those who belong to Christ, might be and will be maintained.

There is no help for them then? We are not to even try to give the deluded man aid? Where is Christ's love there?





But then say say the following: "If they are a believer...itional question is what I am wrestling with at the beginning of the post. They think they are a believer. They say they follow Jesus the Nazarene. Does that not classify that person as a believer in error?





Bob - I don't know the answers here. I don't like to do criticism without replacement of that which is criticized, so I am having a hard time with this.

crud, sorry Henry, you weren't trying to put this out in an absolutist way...

I know some of you guys aren't into "prooftexting" but my initial reaction to this is: "Why am I supposed to accept this standard?" I am not trying to be mean but unless it is based solidly on the word of God it just seems like it is a decree from the throne of Henry. Also HT brings up the internal problems with the standard itself.

First, I question whether the Mormon is really seeking Jesus. I don't think he his because the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible. Thus it isn't the true Jesus. Thus seeking after a false Jesus, can we say he is seeking the true Jesus? I answer no. Either we seek him or we don't.The man might be chosen by God, but as a Mormon he is not saved until he comes to faith in the true Jesus of the New Testament and the Bible. Paul told the Corinthians, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). If the man refuses to see the folly of his false-Christ then he does not have the Spirit of God and thus does not know the mind of Christ. Thus I must say he is not saved because Paul says in Ephesians 1:13-14 that having the Spirit is the guarantee of one's salvation (cf. Galatians 3:1-5).




Second, I quote Paul in Romans 16:17, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them." Clearly those who have wrong doctrine must be avoided so that the unity of the church, of those who belong to Christ, might be and will be maintained. But I don't think that this text says we don't try to win those with false doctrine back to the true gospel.





If they are a believer, I say follow Paul's example in Galatians 2. Peter would act one way with the Jews and another with the Gentiles. He would then even force the Gentiles to live like Jews but he himself would not. Paul said he stood up and called Peter out on the issue. We need to engage those believers who have followed heresy and to show them from the Scriptures where they have missed out on the truth. Paul in Romans 6:17, Acts 20:27, 1 Timothy 6:20-21, 2 Timothy 1:13-14 says that there is a standard of truth by which we must all adhere to as true followers of Christ. Those who have left that standard must be brought back into the fold of God.





If they are unbelievers, we must preach to them the Gospe of the Glory of Jesus Christ. They do not see it so we must preach Jesus Christ to them, and him crucified. God, if he so wills, will open their hearts to shine forth the light of the knowledge of his glory in the face of Jesus (2 Cor. 4:4-6). But we must show them the gospel first or all else is lost. Unless they come to accept the true Jesus as portrayed in Scripture, the God-Man who lived a perfect life and died in our stead to give us eternal life, they cannot go to heaven.





In sum I say with Jude 3, "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." This isn't the belief in God and in Jesus, this faith is the Christian faith, the beliefs that it takes to be a Christian. We must contend for that faith "that was once for all delivered to the saints." We must first maintain that doctrinal purity. Then we must find a way to present it to them without head-bashing and trashing and just throwing out to them conclusions. "We must contend and then contextualize," as Mark Driscoll said the the desiringGod 2006 National Conference.