But as you said, salvation comes from Believing on JESUS, that HE died for our sins and raised again to offer us the gift of eternal life…. that doesn’t require believing the entire Bible.

You can go to heaven simply on the belief in Jesus. That’s the requirement. The Bible was fully constructed in 322 AD… what do you think the Apostle Paul and Peter read in the first century? Since they wrote the letters that compose much of the New Testament Bible, what was it that they turned to? not believing on THE BIBLE or from CLAIMING Christianity in and of themselves does not bar one from salvation offered from believing in Jesus’ life death and resurrection.

NOTE: The following article is taken from an exchange which took place about 3 years ago on a Myspace forum— regarding the interpretation of bible verses sometimes claimed in support of a rather broad and loose interpretation of the term “heresy” —with the phrasing of the original comments I posted edited for better phrasing with some addenta .

Other Person in The Debate : Don’t forget the anathema declaration in Gal. ch. 1. It pretty much sums up the concept of a “different gospel”. Paul is asserting his apostalic authority against heresy, particularly those calling for circumcision. We are also exorted to take a stand for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Being a “saint” or an “apostle” has lead to extreme views of control and credal formulae, but the idea of heresy is definitely applied by the apostles, church fathers, and those who rebelled against them.

THE RESPONSE : Actually it is dubious that the references to a different gospel or ‘another Jesus’ in Galatians refer broadly to any doctine that is unusual or very exotic , as many ultra- fundamentalists might claim . The reference to ‘another Jesus’ or “another gospel” could have very well referred to someone proclaiming another man other than Jesus is messiah . As you point out, the letter of Paul to the Galatians was particularly concerned with those factions of the early Christian community who attempted to promote the belief that one HAD to be circumcized or one could not be a follower of Jesus –a belief that Paul rejects in Galatians

To claim that the part that warns against following another gospel applies to every belief that is considered exotic or novel is a broad interpretation that is NOT warranted by the explicit wording of the verses in Galatians !

In Galatians, the primary opponents that Paul addresses are the faction of the early Christian community that promote circumcision as a requirement for being a follower of Jesus , to apply that warning to any exotic doctrine (as many Fundamentalists often do these days) is conjecture and goes beyond the explicit words of the text . The basic concern of the gospel that Paul was promoting was salvation from sin by the grace of the sacrifice of Jesus–and not by the doing of ritualistic works like circumcision .

(Paul, elsewhere in other epistles like Phillipians, takes a more ecumenical approach, accepting those in the Christian movement who disputed him on some matters of doctrine as still preaching the same jesus and serving the same God even though they disagreed with Paul strongly) .

Take, for example, those in Phillipians chapter :1 verses 14-18 who Paul reports were against his leadership .

In Phillipians 1:16 , Paul

‘ The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds ‘

Notice that Paul refers to these people as preaching Christ ‘of contention ‘ –contention apparently towards Paul himself rejecting the authority of Paul as a leader . And yet Paul believes that these same people who reject the authority Paul as a leader were preaching the same Jesus as he was . He even rejoices that these people that reject the authority of Paul as a leader are preaching Jesus .

In Phillipians 1:18 Paul writes,

‘What then?nothwithstanding , every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and therein I do rejoice, and will rejoice ‘.

That Paul has authority as an apostolic leader was a marginal doctrine that Paul promotes –even in one epistle writing to the community where he states ,

‘be ye followers of me as I am of Christ’ .

And yet Paul does NOT emphasize the doctrine of himself having authority as being as important a doctrine as say , the resurrection and atonement of Jesus . Furthermore, he is willing to rejoice when those that disagree with his authority still preach Jesus (as in Phillipians) and does NOT refer to them as “heretics” nor does he claim they are preaching a ‘different gospel’ .

Paul in another letter Romans chapters 14 verses 1-6 he accepts those in the ‘christian community’ that follow the holy days and dietary rules (apparently of Judaism ) as serving God JUST AS MUCH as those who claim that under grace they are free from such dietary rules –thus allowing for an ecumenical approach in regard to that area of doctrine .In Romans 14:5 he wrote ,

‘let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind ‘ .

You , sir, mentioned the church fathers .

Apparently many of the people who have studied the writings of the Church fathers –have come to the conclusion that the primary factions that the New Testament letters warn about false doctrines were the legalizers and the anti-nomian factions . The legalizers taught that the ceremonial law (and NOT just the moral law) of the first 5 Mosaic books were required for being a follower of Jesus . It is the legalizers to which Paul addresses in Galatians .

The anti-nomians, in contrast, promoted the belief that because Jesus had presented God’s grace (instead of mere ceremonial law) as a means of relating to God, that it was somehow then okay to throw away the moral law as well and engage in wild sex -even extramarital sex and wild hedonism without much restraint on conduct .

It is the anti-nomians that are alluded to apparently in some of the writings of the very early church fathers . That sheds apparent light on the warnings in the epistle called Jude about ungodly men ‘turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness’ and in the New Testament epistle 2 Peter, of “false teachers” –as well as the warnings against the warnings in the epistle of 2 Timothy about those that “will not endure sound doctrine” and have “itching ears” and be ‘turned unto fables’ . It is the anti-nomain factions –sexual perverts and those that forbid marriage that 2 Timothy warns about –NOT anyone that has an unusual doctrine –NOT open theists, charismatics ect .

Hence 2 Timothy 3:6 describes people who ,

“creep into houses and lead captive silly women captive with sins , led away with divers lusts. ” .

1 Timothy also warns against those who forbid others to marry .(see 1 Timothy 4 :3)

Apparently the verse in the book of Revelation also that warns against , ‘the doctrine of the Nicolaitans’ (Revelation 2:15) is, according to church fathers like Iraneaus , directed at the anti-nomians that had been followers of a man named Nicolas. He apparently had advocated liberated sex and going to feasts devoted to polytheistic idols (aka to commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols) .

Thus, much of the concern about false doctrines can be more plausibly interpreted as being about doctrines by legalizing factions and factions of the early church that promoted sexual immorality and hedonism —and NOT about exotic theology (that so many of the fundamentalist heresy hunters are against) .

It is indeed bizarre that many Fundamentalists, Calvinists and so on try and apply such warnings about ‘heresy’ and give them broad interpretation towards theological doctrines and beliefs they find exotic (such as open theism .open theism,. by the way, is more in keeping with the concept of God in Judaism as being open to dialectic with created beings . And Jesus is very Jewish ) .

Jesus in the gospels when he speaks of false prophets uses a moral criteria and NOT a criteria of “doctrinal correctness” as a means of explaining how you can tell true prophets from false prophets . In Matthew 7:18 he teaches,

‘a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit ‘.

Jesus in the gospels takes a very ecumenical approach –accepting some of those who chose to remain outside the community of his own apostles as still serving the kingdom of God . In Mark 9:38 John tells Jesus that there was one casting out devils in his name and how he and the other disciples ‘forbade him for he followeth not us’.

Jesus then told him in the next verse , forbid him not’ and in Mark 9:40 added ,

‘He that is not against us is on our part’ .

Jesus in the gospels did NOT say anything to support the heresy hunting that many Fundamentalists support at all .

In Matthew 25: verses 31-46 , the criteria that Jesus said would separate the blessed from the accursed was NOT any doctrinal theological “correctness” for its own sake, but instead whether or not a person showed kindness to those who he called ‘the least of his bretheren’ . The ultimate criteria according to Jesus that separated the sheep from the goats was NOT whether they believed in doctrines like baptism by immersion , the impassibility of God , the authority of the apostles, the protestant canon , total depravity , or any of the doctrines that Calvinists and other Fundamentalists allege to be such paramount doctrines , but instead whether they fed, gave drink, clothed, welcomed , visited those that Jesus called ‘the least of the bretheren ‘ .

That is NOT to say that Matthew 25 taught redemption by works , but rather that Jesus taught that following him and God involved making a conscious effort to show kindness to the destitute out of a pure principle of charity — and also NOT expecting any reward for doing so .

Note that in Matthew 25:37-40 , the people who Jesus calls blessed are apparently suprised they served Jesus in helping the least of the brethren . They ask questions like ‘when did we you hungry and give you something to eat ?, when saw you a stranger and take you in? ‘ et al.

Are these questions that Jesus predicts the blessed people will ask in Matthew 25 rhetorical questions or earnest questions ?

If they are earnest questions then that suggests that these people (which Jesus calls blessed) do these acts of charity *without expecting any reward for doing so at all , but do so to serve a principle of kindness towards the unfortunate . That further indicates that a person having the “heart” (disposition) directed toward kindness to the unfortunate is more important a criteria to Jesus than doctrinal correctness when such doctrinal “correctness” is conceived apart from the more purely ethical considerations .

The irony is that the people in the story of Matthew who give unto the least of the bretheren did so , not to avoid some unpleasant torture in some hell nor to gain litertalized rewards in some paradise but did so sheerly out of kindness ..charity , for after all they did not fully realize that by feeding , visiting , giving shelter to the least of the believers in Jesus they were indirectly giving to Jesus too .

In the New Testament epistle called I John sums up what is most important in terms of the teaching of Jesus that the epistle calls ‘his commandments’ .

‘ And this is his commandment that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as he gave us commandment ‘.

Thus, in the epistle called I John, the basic tenet of belief is indeed a very basic tenet and believing the gospel is NOT equated with a lengthy list of doctrinally correct beliefs that heresy hunting sectarians claim !

J said on: July 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

THE PERILS OF HUNTING SO-CALLED HERESY [Part 1 ]

In this present era especially , there is a lot of talk in some sectarian groups–especially Fundamentalist protestant groups and in some anti-progressive factions of Catholicism about so-called “heresy” and “heretics” . What’s odd is that in some of these religious factions –especially Fundamentalist factions to label some notions “heretical” apparently because these notions seem way too exotic or way too unusual , even though some of the beliefs supported by such Fundamentalist pundits and theologians were, at one time in history, themselves called “heresy” by many of the other earler dominant churches when these religious movements, to which these Fundamentalists belong, emerged .

An example: the practice of the Baptist denomination to baptize people as adults when they had made more of an inquiry into what Baptism meant about 3 or 4 centuries ago –when the Baptist sect was young–was condemmed as a heresy by the earlier dominant church denominationsin Europe.

It is also quite hazy as to whether a lot of the hunters who object to so-called heresy have any fixed criteria for deciding if some notion is heresy or not. Calvinists and those factions of Arminian /Protestants who believe in free will (and are ALSO fundamentalists) tend to regard the doctrines promoted by each other as alternative forms of Christianity –the Calvinists disagree with Arminian doctrine and vice versa (but with perhaps a few odd exceptions) don’t call each other heretics, yet might call other doctrines so-called “heresies” like open theism (to give an example) or say elements of the Charismatic movement -to give another example .

Jesus in the gospels never uses the word ‘heresy’ . Jesus denounces some people for being NON-consistent.. having internal contradictions in beliefs and attitudes, and/or for being petty , superficial , venal /greedy, NOT for having some exotic theology ! Though Jesus is fond of pointing out internal inconsistency in the beliefs that some people express , he does NOT in the gospels show any desire to support some doctrinal ” correctness” as any goal for its own sake .

Jesus criticizes the false prophets not for teaching unusual doctrine , but instead for fostering unethical conduct . The difference between a true prophet and a false prophet was a true prophet produced good fruits and false prophet bad fruits .

St.Paul uses the term ‘heretic’ in the epistle to Titus , but does NOT define a list of doctrines that make a person a heretic or make up ‘heresy’. Thus it is presumptuous to claim support from St.Paul for the broad use of the term ‘heresy’ that many Fundamentalists and some factions of Catholics like to bandy around .

The only time the word ‘heresies’ gets anything almost like a definition is when in the New Testament epistle called 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2 which describes heresy as ‘denying the Lord that bought them’, and NOT in the broad sense that the word ‘heresy’ is used today. Thus, according to 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 2, the term ‘heresies’ specifically refers to denying the Lord. It does NOT in that verse have a broad application of applying to each and every exotic or unusual doctrine or belief .

In the book of Revelation, there is a particular doctrine that is villified called ‘the doctrine of the Nicolotaines’ (Revelation 2:15) . However, according to many of the early church fathers like Iranaeaus , the doctrine of the Nicolataines was rejected and opposed by the author of Revelation out of an objection that was more basic , inasmuch as the Nicolaitaines were anti-nomians (i.e. hedonists) of a sort who espoused wild sexual promiscuity and also eating foods set aside to be devoted to polytheistic pagan idols . Hence, the opposition in the book of Revelation was NOT based on some sort of doctrinal groupthink which sought to reject notions because they were too exotic–but, instead, out of ethical objections having to do more with personal conduct and also a disapproval of accepting polytheistic practices .

It is interesting to note that in Phillipians I :15-18, St. Paul acknowleges that those in the Christian community which were against Paul as leader were, nonetheless, preaching the same Jesus and rejoiced in that they were doing so

Nowhere do any of the verses of the bible state that universalism , nor open theism are any “heresies” .

As a NON-fundamentalist Christian , I will always hope and pray that eventually every person will be redeemed by Jesus –or if not redeemed perhaps remediated). There may be some people who persist in some immoral behavior so tenaciously and severly that their souls may have to be destroyed partially and then have the elements of their souls reconstructed later –or their spirit somehow redeemed without the soul ..(perhaps serial killers and such might be included in such a prospect) .

Thank Jesus for universalist theologians !

Here below I am posting two articles that make the case that the use of terms like ‘heresy’ and ‘heretic’ in the New Testament epistles–should NOT be interpreted in the broad way that many ultra-Fundamentalists do…

The case is made that since in the epistles of Paul , where words such as ‘heresies’ and ‘heretic’ appear in the text…nowhere does Paul state explictly which specific doctrines are to be considered heretical , and since the only place in the bible scriptures where there is anything close to a definition of “heresy” is in the epistle of 2 Peter, where the author refers to people , ‘denying the Lord that bought them’ and NOT to Christian Universalism , open theism , or every form of unusual doctrine , but specifically to denying the Lord…and so the broad accusations that such and such a doctrine is “heresy” (that many ultra-Fundamentalists like to cast around) are playing fast and loose with the text .

Furthermore, the doctrines of Fundamentalism are not on every point “orthodox Christianity” . True orothodox Christianity is more in keeping with the Eastern Orthodox sect—NOT the doctrines promoted by lousy theologians like John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon ect. Gregory of Nyssa and a number of the early church fathers supported universalism .

I see that some have posted words to the effect that they were going to pray that Carlton Pearson stop supporting universalism and support a fundamentalist outlook . That is disgusting !

In light of how Jesus taught that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive’ and how that applies even to salvation , please do not pray that I become a fundamentalist. If it turns out that an ultra-Fundamentalist deity is running the universe (a different Deity than the Father of the Jesus who gave us the sermon on the mount)—then me becoming a fundamentalist and going to a fundamentalist heaven while other people (even nice people) are being tortured endlessly for not praying a Christian prayer prior to bodily death ..I would regard as a worse state of affairs than me being sent to a hell of fire and brimstone . It would be outrageously selfish for me to go to a fundamentalist sort of heaven —if there are people being tortured for an endless period of years .

If an ultra-Fundamentalist wants to send people to a fire and brimstone hell (or “allow” them to go there) where people are endlessly tortured —even nice people—then I’d just as soon rather try to persuade such a deity to to torture me instead *in the fire brimstone forever , rather than them and let the other people out of such a hell. If such an ultra-Fundamentalist deity maintains that such persons who have died without converting to Christianity are unworthy of heaven because of their sin or belief , then they could still be let out of that hell and sent to some other place that is *neither heaven nor a painfull variety of hell —that does not have any of the pleasures of heaven and yet does not have the pain and sufferring of hell—a neutral place of endless tedious boredom , or embarassment maybe .

Those ultra-fundamentalists, who would be disappointed in Jesus, if Jesus eventually saved everyone, remind one of the weird atitude by the people in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard who were disappointed that the people who were hired at the last hour were given the same wage as those who worked all day long and endured the heat of the day .

see, he’s an EGO MANIAC and an exploiter of souls and peoples.
when he couldn’t be the biggest and the baddest man, he went on for somethin’ new. but it ain’t really.

universalism has been around. apostacy has been around. it be one thing to show your love towards gays and lesbians, but to tell them an everyone else that you ain’t in danger of hell, is just cruel.

the man be cruel, selfish and arrogant. also the Bible does say it would be way worse for him as a false teacher and leader of the blind into damnation than for those who don’t know better.

he is taking advantage of broken souls and giving them a bandaid when they need a miracle.

he is a selfish manipulator and a real wolf in sheep’s clothing. hear me now, the man always centers almost everthin’ on himself and that there is clue.

pray for him to be stopped first and helped later.

carlton you couldn’t handle not be some maniac messiah. you got the obama’s and worse in your heart. messiah complex and contradictin’ the true Messiah. who by the way mr. apostate, taught on hell.

take your gay demons, your new age demons and be stopped, cut off and cut down in the Lord by the Holy Spirit. you replaced HIM with yourself now!

shame on you carlton. shame on you for actin’ the victim, for being a deceiver and for your wife who is way too worshippful of you and not the Lord Jesus.

why don’t you write a new Bible and take out all the scripture you don’t want to face or preach. you are only going to go off the path of your new ugly success because the grace that once sheltered you is comin’ off. but then, God is always gracious and judgment always moves to restore.