In part 1, I talked about how skeptics and atheists often complain when I (or another apologist) make the comment that such-and-so Christian is wrong.  The skeptic usually says it means I have found “True Christianity™” and every other Christian who disagrees is going to go to hell.

Not so.  And there’s no such thing as True Christianity™.

In part 2, I discussed degrees of wrong, using a traffic light as a guide.  Green light is 99% of Christianity; just denominations hashing out some differences of procedure.  Yellow light redefines core doctrines.  Red light denies core doctrines and is strongly associated with a central figure who receives his own divine revelations.

Paul talks about agreeing to disagree, to welcome everyone and to not make the work of God void over what we should eat and drink.  So can we ever fight for the faith?

In green light situations, there is no reason to fight.  My own denomination is the United States branch of a German group, so it isn’t its own denomination proper.  However, we’ve split twice in the last 30 years.  In the mid-80s, Grace College and Ashland College split over the classic Calvinism (Ashland) versus Arminianism (Grace) battle.  In the early 90s, a Grace professor split over who to welcome into churches.

These aren’t worthwhile fights, but I know they happen anyway and will continue to happen until Christ returns.  We should just let these green light situations be, and live as peaceably as possible with them as it depends on us.

Yellow light and red light situations are totally different.

In the case of Ergun Caner, an example of a yellow light situation, it kills me to see Christians not care that he lied about his background to win Muslims to Christ.  All these Christians care about is that Caner won them.  What does that say about their moral character if they are willing to excuse (I can’t believe I’m about to use this derided expression) lying for Jesus?

The ends do not justify the means.  I know that God has called Christians to a higher standard than that.  Which means that we should win people with the truth to the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  And when we see lying like this, we should repudiate it and the supporters of it (I’m looking at you, Norm Geisler).

A bona fide red light situation, such as Harold Camping’s Family Radio, should be addressed expeditiously.  Today, October 21, is allegedly the end of the world according to Harold Camping.  Yet I’m here to write this and I presume someone is reading this.

Camping and his Family Radio movement deny the presence of the Holy Spirit within the universal church and have fixed today somewhat arbitrarily as the end of the world.  That, together with the strong association with Camping, gives this the earmarks of heresy outlined in my previous post.

This error needs to be addressed, and Camping called to repentance.  (I already did back in May.)

I hope that this series of posts have cleared up what True Christianity™ is, and is not.  God has promised to preserve his church on earth, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  So whether we identify as Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Reformed Baptist, Grace Brethren, or Anglican, we should welcome each other with open arms in our churches and celebrate our differences rather than be divided by them.

When redefinition occurs, we should point it out.

When denial occurs, we should repudiate it.

Above all, we should join with Jesus in prayer that we be one, as he and the Father are One.

I did part 1 of this a long, long, time ago but never quite got to part 2.

In the last post, I basically said that we should bow to the weaker brother and let him have his ritual.  If he thinks that we must be baptized by triune immersion in a lake, then let him get baptized that way.  If he thinks all Christians should abstain from alcohol, then don’t crack open an ice-cold Corona with a lime wedge in front of him.

In the non-essentials of faith, let the weaker brother abstain.  Don’t try to talk him out of it.  Don’t insist on giving him a glass of wine, stay clear of it in front of him as well.  Don’t force him to use a baptismal, offer to drive him to a lake yourself.

But, there are times when you have to come after fellow Christians and tell them they are wrong.

For example, in my extended review of John Shelby Spong’s Sins of Scripture (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7), I handed the good bishop his butt.  I fought for the traditional deposit of faith, above Spong’s redefinition of all the terms.  I did that because, as James White often says, the gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit.  Spong completely changes what it means to be a Christian, and how a Christian ought to approach the Scriptures.

Spong basically denies every fundamental of the faith that I listed in the previous post, to wit:

• Existence of God as a Trinity
• Preeminence of Christ over his creation
• Mankind fell into sin, and is now utterly enslaved to it
• Death of Jesus making atonement for the sins of mankind
• Resurrection of Jesus on the third day
• Future return of Christ to judge the living and the dead

Currently, a Christian is doing this same thing to me, here.  I might be wrong, because I’m not infallible.  I believe that faith is more than belief, that it is also good works.  In other words, faith is loyalty to God manifested by both belief and good works.  Mike, however, doesn’t think so.  We are both trying to come to some sort of common ground with each other.

Which raises the question: When do I get to call an error “error?”

I think there are three categories of theological error.  Let’s discuss them. Read the rest of this entry →