Sounds like a pair of oxymorons, doesn't it?
Biblical heretics and cultists?
Read Matthew 4. See that Satan loves to quote Scripture, but he quotes it out of context.
I learned the hard way that nuts and heretics can quote Scripture, out of context, to "prove" their points. Additionally, they make a habit out of accusing the rest of Christianity of being false or deceived, in order to reinforce their heresies or bad doctrines.
Biblical hermeneutics are important. The source of many heretical teachings involve context. The heretical teacher is ignoring context in some way. They create a "rabbit trail" that ignores the surrounding factors that would clarify the Scripture, and lead to a different conclusion than they are proposing. I recommend the book How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee in regards to understanding these contextual issues. It may save you from hanging around with kooks for a decade or more, until you learn that they are kooks. Their arguments can sound convincing, and still be false.
Beware of them. Beware of any individuals who claim they have "the truth" and that the rest of Christianity (particularly evangelical Christianity) is false.
Many groups that deny these truths are, in fact, accusing Christianity of being heretical or satanic. Often they have a conspiracy theory that accompanies their theology. Elements of it often claim that Constantine or the Roman Catholic Church is the source of the doctrinal error that they claim is part of Christianity.
Also, check out the wide scope of what they believe before you get indoctrinated progressively by them. Are they denying essential Christian doctrine? Many of them deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the inspiration of Paul's writings, or claim that extra-biblical sources of information are authoritative or inspired.
I often address the wider scope of their beliefs before letting them give me their spiel on a given topic. They certainly don't like that, because they want to convince you of one issue, before indoctrinating you into their other, much more heretical views. One doctrine that is convincing is used as a wedge to lead you into further error that is more obvious.
I would define the essentials as these:
1) the full deity of Jesus Christ
2) monotheism (there is only one God)
3) the doctrine of the Trinity or Triune nature of God
4) justification by faith alone
5) authority and inspiration of Scripture alone
6) substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross
7) original sin
8) virgin birth
9) bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
10) eternal reward of the righteous and eternal
punishment of the wicked at Christ's return
These principles are so clearly taught in Scripture that they are undeniable. Could a younger believer be confused on these points? Certainly. But if someone claims to be a teacher and ignores them, there's a serious problem.
Some will ask, what gives you the authority to define the essentials? First question I'd ask is, which point do you disagree with, and why? What additional point do you think belongs? The answer, if they will reply honestly, will tell you a lot about the root of their resistance. My answer is, these points are clearly taught in Scripture, and it is the ultimate authority. I have no authority to define the essentials but Scripture does. And neither does their organization or themselves have that authority.
Biblical heretics and cultists?
Read Matthew 4. See that Satan loves to quote Scripture, but he quotes it out of context.
I learned the hard way that nuts and heretics can quote Scripture, out of context, to "prove" their points. Additionally, they make a habit out of accusing the rest of Christianity of being false or deceived, in order to reinforce their heresies or bad doctrines.
Biblical hermeneutics are important. The source of many heretical teachings involve context. The heretical teacher is ignoring context in some way. They create a "rabbit trail" that ignores the surrounding factors that would clarify the Scripture, and lead to a different conclusion than they are proposing. I recommend the book How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee in regards to understanding these contextual issues. It may save you from hanging around with kooks for a decade or more, until you learn that they are kooks. Their arguments can sound convincing, and still be false.
Beware of them. Beware of any individuals who claim they have "the truth" and that the rest of Christianity (particularly evangelical Christianity) is false.
Many groups that deny these truths are, in fact, accusing Christianity of being heretical or satanic. Often they have a conspiracy theory that accompanies their theology. Elements of it often claim that Constantine or the Roman Catholic Church is the source of the doctrinal error that they claim is part of Christianity.
Also, check out the wide scope of what they believe before you get indoctrinated progressively by them. Are they denying essential Christian doctrine? Many of them deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the inspiration of Paul's writings, or claim that extra-biblical sources of information are authoritative or inspired.
I often address the wider scope of their beliefs before letting them give me their spiel on a given topic. They certainly don't like that, because they want to convince you of one issue, before indoctrinating you into their other, much more heretical views. One doctrine that is convincing is used as a wedge to lead you into further error that is more obvious.
I would define the essentials as these:
1) the full deity of Jesus Christ
2) monotheism (there is only one God)
3) the doctrine of the Trinity or Triune nature of God
4) justification by faith alone
5) authority and inspiration of Scripture alone
6) substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross
7) original sin
8) virgin birth
9) bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
10) eternal reward of the righteous and eternal
punishment of the wicked at Christ's return
These principles are so clearly taught in Scripture that they are undeniable. Could a younger believer be confused on these points? Certainly. But if someone claims to be a teacher and ignores them, there's a serious problem.
Some will ask, what gives you the authority to define the essentials? First question I'd ask is, which point do you disagree with, and why? What additional point do you think belongs? The answer, if they will reply honestly, will tell you a lot about the root of their resistance. My answer is, these points are clearly taught in Scripture, and it is the ultimate authority. I have no authority to define the essentials but Scripture does. And neither does their organization or themselves have that authority.
Last edited: