Week one: 1.1-9 salvation presented, and questioned by life

Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except as provided by U.S.A. copyright laws.

Paul is writing to churches in the Roman province of Galatia. The book is identified as Pauline by all but one liberal school of thought. Many identify Galatians as the standard by which all of Paul's writings are judged. The experts use this to compare all his other work to as they study.

I might suggest that there is no indication that this should be the case, however the fact that the Law is past being the basis of the book, this basis is true for the whole of the New Testament as well.

Some identify the people living in this area as Gallic, others as Gauls.

There is much discussion whether the churches were in the north or the south. Chapter four indicates that he was sick while in Galatia originally thus most agree he wouldn't have traveled to the remote north, and it was usually his practice to stay near the well traveled roads and byways.

Since the Scripture is silent on the specific churches we are left to speculate. At any rate the churches would have welcomed news from the man that had founded them in their new spiritual life.

Most see him planting these churches on his second missionary journey and that the letter was written sometime during his third journey.

There also is a lot of discussion on the date of writing, though this is normally linked to whether the letter went to Northern or Southern Galatia. Most conservative people date it at 49-50 A.D.

The opposition to Paul is mentioned in each chapter of the book. (see 1:6-7; 2:4-5; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7-12; 6:12-13) He seems to single out one particular individual (3:1; 5:7, 10), can you imagine being that individual sitting in the church when this letter was read? The tension must have been thick as the earth's surface, and the temperament of the individual must have been that of a stream of lava rushing to the surface!

One must wonder what this individual and his followers went through in the following days after the letter was read.

Dr. Constable in his online commentary quotes a source with a description of the apostle. I include it only for your interest, for it is likely flawed. It comes from the second century so is a hand me down description at best. "The earliest physical description of Paul we have comes from a second-century apocryphal writing. It described Paul as "a man of small stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness; for now he appeared like a man, and now he had the face of an angel." Since Paulus means small, that portion of the description may be accurate.

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Gee, I wish Paul could be clear about what he means here. He is so vague about why he thinks he is an apostle :-) Well, vague is not the word - VERY CLEAR seems to be the term. He is laying out his apostolic authority immediately and very clearly. He is an apostle by authority of Christ and God the Father, not any mere man. Indeed, he is an apostle by authority of the God that raised Christ from the dead - just in case there is any doubt about the power of this God to make him an apostle.

It seems also that this reference to the resurrection might be a deliberate call of the reader’s attention to where we are in the overall plan of God - we are now post cross, operating in the aspect of grace - not the law.

The term "by" indicates a personal face to face relationship to the appointment. The Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary calls Christ the "immediate operating agent" in the call of the apostle. It is clear in the book of Acts that his call was the idea of God, not the vote of man.

You might want to take a quick look at the first verses of Paul's other books to see how he introduces himself.

2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Here we see a departure from Paul's other introductions. In others he names the people that are with him, but here he simply mentions the brethren. It seems that he might want to draw the attention of the reader to him and his authority and not muddy the waters with what others might have taught, while calling attention to the fact that ALL that are with him are in agreement with what he is about to say.

We see that this book was written to the churches in Galatia. We don't know how many churches there were, but to all that are in the area.

We need to remember that we aren't talking about a dozen church buildings where believers gathered on Sunday to worship with four hymns, prayer and a sermon, but these were gatherings of believers meeting where they could. Many most likely met in homes when they had opportunity. Many on Sunday, but I'd guess since some believers were slaves the meeting opportunity may have been limited, and at varied times of day.

Paul was writing to believers that were struggling to make ends meet financially while attempting to raise families in ruff situations - while witnessing for their Lord and Savior. We say we don't have time to witness, but our lives are much less complicated than theirs I'd guess. If our lives are too complicated to share the Gospel, then we are allowing too much into our lives.

One further aspect of this verse is worth exploring. "brethren which are with me" seems to jump out at me in our present day. Here is an apostle, a leader and teacher of the church that is ministering where he can - and he has other men with him assisting him in his ministry.

Some would say, "So what?'' Consider the many pastors you have known in your life - how many of them have other men assisting them in the ministry? Many have boards that do some of the work, but there are few that allow other men to "minister" with them. Many pastors will hardly turn their pulpit over to a missionary for twenty minutes, much less turn it over to another man in the church for a series of studies or a few messages.

We, in our modern church have nearly eliminated lay preachers from our minds. Men that know the word, men that know the Lord, men that love the Lord, men that want to serve the Lord and men that ought to be ministering in our churches.

I had the privilege of filling in as pastor for a Bible church in the mid-west. I talked with one of the men several times about ministry and ideas for running a church. One of the things he told me was that he had a real burden to teach the Word, and to minister to people, but he just didn't feel that he had the talents or abilities to minister to people on a personal level such as visitation, counseling etc.

He was sitting on the side-line in Christ's church because the church has boxed all people into categories. We have closed people out of ministering when God has gifted them to do so.

I personally identified with this man because this is true of my own situation in life. I am gifted as a teacher and helper, but I do not work all that well with people on a personal basis, thus I have basically nowhere to minister in the modern church.

What would be wrong if we had men that ministered the Word from the pulpits and lecterns and others that ministered to the personal needs of the folks? Nothing, in my mind, indeed, it seems from the Word that this is how God set things up in the first place.

3 Grace [be] to you and peace from God the Father, and [from] our Lord Jesus Christ,

The term translated "grace" is the normal term for grace, but many limit it to mean something that is given that is not deserved, and that is a good definition when used of Salvation and a gift, but this is a much broader term. It is Strong's number 5485 if you'd like to look it up for the complete listing. It can mean that which gives pleasure, joy sweetness, charm and delight.

The term here that is translated "peace" has the thought of the lack of turmoil - turmoil of war, of strife of argument, thus we might surmise that there were some heavy feelings about this teaching that Paul is about to embark upon.

Years ago we were in a situation where we were asked to take on a certain ministry. We began getting advice from some, while others started telling us what to do. We had our own ideas that did not relate to what we were being told.

We were in great turmoil as we knew what God had laid on our hearts, but yet the church people were telling us to do differently. We discussed the situation and of course decided to follow the Lord's leading.

We braced for the fire storm - which never developed - no person came to us to confront us or give further advice - what peace we had knowing that God had given us the ideas and that He had provided the peace to face what would come - even though nothing came - peace - that which the believer needs to find in God rather than the dictates of man.

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

"Who gave himself for our sins" - the term gave is of note - it relates often to the giving of or granting of, thus indicating Christ offered Himself to the crucifiers, He granted them the opportunity to take His life. I Tim. 2.5 "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

The term translated "sin" has the thought of missing the mark. The term is the Greek word "hamartia" which is the term from which we gain the name for the study of sin in theology "Hamartiology." It seems to have the thought also of knowing the mark and aiming for the mark but at the same time missing it. It isn't that man doesn't know God's standard, it is that he decides to reject that standard. We know where the mark is, we know how to hit the mark, but we choose to miss the mark and strike our own mark.

"Deliver us from this present evil world" The term present is in the perfect tense indicating that this was and is and ever will be an evil world right up to the end of it. The world will not have its good days and its bad days, it will always have only bad days. It isn't a good world now and then, it is always and ever will be an evil world.

Now, to apply that to our everyday life, we might consider that the lost world is against God and as a result against believers. We are to understand this so that we can operate in a manner consistent with God's will.

"According to the will of God and our Father" Here we see a great truth. God the Father determined the path of Christ during His time on earth. God willed that Jesus go to the cross for sinful men. This also shows a hierarchy within the Godhead. God planned it and Christ completed it. There is a subservience of Christ to the Father's will - Christ was not less than God, He was equal to, but subservient to the Father.

5 To whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I would assume this is one of the passages that would back up the thought that we will be giving God glory for all eternity. Not necessarily will we be verbally glorifying Him constantly, though that will be part of it, but mostly we by our presence with Him will be a glory unto His name forever - we are purchases of His to display for all eternity, we are examples of His grace for all eternity and we are examples of Christian living on earth for all eternity.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

It isn't a large surprise that these new believers were led astray, but that they were persuaded by another gospel. It isn't uncommon for someone to be sidetracked or to take on another life after accepting the Gospel, but to be taken in by a false gospel is not that common.

When first a believer, I was not discipled and for about five years I continued on in my normal course of life not knowing of the Christian life. I entered the Navy and became a typical sailor.

After several years the Lord turned me around and I began to learn of Christianity and its requirements. During this time I was confronted with other spiritual overtures, but none made any sense to me nor did they have any draw.

The word translated "removed" has the idea of something taking the place of another or substituting one for another, thus the thought of leaving Christ and following another gospel. These folks were leaving the gospel of grace, and replacing it with a gospel of another sort - in this case a gospel of works.

Our calling to salvation is shown here to be a one time calling, an aorist tense is used - called at a point in time, not something that continues on and on every time you hear a stirring message, but once and for all time we are called into the gospel that brings us to Christ.

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Paul seems to be confused - he says they are taken away to another gospel, but it is not another gospel. So, how is that? I think what he is saying here is that they thought they were called away from the gospel of grace to another gospel, a gospel of works. However, in truth there is no other gospel than the gospel of grace, so the gospel of works is not really a gospel.

If this is what he is saying, then apply that one to our society today. How many ways are there to heaven? One, through the gospel of grace, and you can label all other gospels as gospels not being gospels - all are false teaching, and false gospels.

He goes on to explain that the people that they are listening to are PERVERTING the gospel of Christ. Their gospel was not true - it was a perversion of the true gospel of Christ. The gospel of Christ is pure and simple, but these Judaizers were perverting that simple and pure gospel by adding requirements to what God had set for the ages before the foundation of the world.

Humm, does that seem a little arrogant to you - someone looking at the gospel that God set down before the foundation of the world and saying it isn't quite good enough - I think we have to work a little for it as well - in essence, God isn't able to define and institute a gospel that can save, but we - those that need to be saved - know what is lacking and we can supply it - I hope that sounds ludicrous to you for indeed it truly is ludicrous for man to be able to assist God in his own salvation.

These will "trouble" you - or cause commotion within, to disquiet, to strike with fear, or to render anxious or dreadful. This word describes well the emotions of one that has accepted the gospel of Christ, and has been given teaching that brings into question that simple and pure gospel.

One that questions their salvation, is often fearful of loosing their salvation, anxious about how they are living their life - afraid that they are disappointing God. In reality many brought up in the 50-60's Bible belt environment were as described - fearful and anxious about their salvation and their life before God. Many questioned whether they were even saved, many thought they were total failures in their Christian lives.

The cure to all this fear was to stop listening to that inner voice that troubles you - that voice of doubt in the God that said He had saved you. He designed it, He instituted it, and He delivered it to you and you sit in your arrogance and question whether He did it right or not! Please, have confidence in the God that called you unto Himself for His own glory.

Please, also do not allow a mere man or mere book bring total upset to your soul when they try to add to the requirements that have already been met for your salvation - God did it all and no matter what someone tells you, HE DID IT ALL and YOU CAN DO NOTHING TO ASSIST HIM - NOTHING. He did it in the past and it is complete, so how in the world can you do anything to help in the completed process? You simply and unequivocally cannot.

The thought of the word "troubled" is the exact opposite of the term translated peace in the previous verses. They were taking away the peace that the Gospel can give to the soul. They were causing turmoil in the lives of the believers when they should have been enjoying peace and tranquility.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Oooops, sorry Mormon readers - that was God speaking, not me!

I had a professor in graduate school that loved puns, so he was one of my favorite professors. He read this passage once as follows: "But though we, or an angel, (affectionately called phony Morony) from heaven, preach any other gospel...." Neither he nor I mean any disrespect to the Mormon follower, but would wish to point out that if you have even an angel from heaven telling you that what is recorded in the Word is not the complete gospel, let HIM BE ACCURSED.

Anyone that adds to the Word of God is accursed. This applies to all that follow traditions, confessions, versions, etc. that are over and above the Word. Many today set tradition, books and teachings above the Word of God - these are accursed according to Paul.

I have seen reformed people that do not really teach that the confessions are above the Word, but they practice it. They speak of teaching their confessions to their families, rather than teaching them the Word of God. Indeed, their gospel at times seems to be another gospel, for they seem to require following of the creeds as the standard of acceptance rather than the obedience to the Word.

The term "heaven" is used of the sky, the universe or the dwelling place of God. In this context it would indicated God's dwelling place, in that the angels have access to all, but dwell in the same place as God Himself.

As a complete side note, take a few moments and contemplate the life of an angel, able to transit from God's throne, though the galaxies, through the atmosphere and to earth - how much like those wonderful dreams when we fly above the ground and go where we will to and fro with little if any effort - this is the normal life of the angel - and just why would an angel turn against God and give all this up to follow Satan - another topic of contemplation!

Some fine points from the verse:

1. The preaching of another gospel is a present tense as opposed to the gospel preached by Paul which is an aorist. The gospel of Christ was preached once and they accepted it, but this false gospel is continually being preached to them.

Once and for all your salvation was sealed at one point in time. To sway you from that truth takes persistence - don't allow persistence of error to rob you of truth.

2. The language used here is of interest. Loosely translated it runs along this line: But though we, or an angel from heaven, EVANGELIZE unto you than that which EVANGELIZE unto you let him be accursed. The American Standard version states "But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema"

The force of this is that these people are attempting to evangelize just as Paul had evangelized them - equal force is the thought - as I evangelized you so they are evangelizing you - even though they appear to be as I - though they seem to be concerned with your spiritual health - let them be accursed. In essence isn't Paul also implying that the Judaizers felt that the people were lost and in need of their gospel - that without Christ and the Law, they would be lost to hell? I think that is the direct implication.

Now, such language - this Paul ought not be so mean and rude to these people, after all they have my best interest at heart and he is telling me they are accursed. Where does he get off being so judgmental? Does this sound like some you have run into? Paul says these that mislead, these that teach falsely, these that would remove you from your peace, and these that would substitute the gospel of grace are accursed!

I suggest we use the same tactics that Paul used - call these false teachers what they are - accursed. The Mormon's that mislead are accursed, they are not part of Christianity, they are not just another way to God, and they are accursed.

Those that would have you work for your salvation are accursed.

Those that would have you do more than accept Christ are accursed.

Those that would have you replace the work of the cross with works of your own are accursed.

I think that is plain enough for now!

3. The term translated accursed is the Greek word "anathema" which means to put under a great curse. The Net Bible ends this verse with the thought of condemned to hell. A footnote suggests that not only is the curse in view but the result as well. If the person is accursed, they are definitely on their way to eternal punishment.

Paul uses the same term again in the next verse when he restates his curse. The word is also used in the following texts.

Acts 23.14 "And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul." I won't comment on the priests and elders but this might be a little exaggeration for effect on their part. They had sworn to not eat until they killed Paul. To them a noble effort, to God a foolish effort, but I'm sure they wanted him dead - not just sure they would have starved to death if they couldn't have killed him.

Rom. 9.3 "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" Here we see the word used in the reality that if it were true it would result in hell for the one accursed. Paul would give himself up to hell if his brethren - the Jews - could be saved.

I Cor. 12.3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Again, we see the thought of the one accursed ending in hell (not that Christ could).

I Cor. 16.22 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Here as in the last three verses the result of the accursed is hell. The word is not translated here, just presented in its original Greek form.

A moment of application if we might. Paul tells them that the Judaizers were accursed - they are trying to live by keeping the law for salvation - they are on their way to hell, so anyone trusting in keeping the law is damned. Remember that. Indeed, it would seem that trusting anything but the blood of Christ for salvation is trusting the wrong thing and places the person on a fast track to eternal damnation.

A sincere warning to anyone trying to keep the law or any list of do's and don'ts to gain salvation - you won't be able to based on Paul's teaching here. Consider carefully what you trust for salvation, since only the blood of Christ will do. If you want to work and/or keep something feel free to do so as a way to please God, but don't you dare expect salvation from it.

4. Even if Paul or the apostles come teaching - don't you believe them. No matter what they say, if they preach another gospel than the one preached originally - don't you believe them.

Application: Question ALL you read and hear and trust nothing unless it lines up squarely with the Word of God. Even if it comes from a trusted friend, a trusted teacher, a trusted preacher, or a trusted acquaintance, don't you accept it unless you first compare it to the Word of God.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Ahhhhh, Paul realizes some need to have warnings repeated - some just don't listen carefully when Paul speaks so he adds a little emphasis. I say again! Get it this time if you missed it the last time - let the person that preaches a different gospel be accursed. I don't think there was any doubt in Paul's mind as to what he wanted to say.

APPLICATION:

1. Might one application be along this line? If someone comes to you with another gospel, let them be accursed - it doesn't mean you are to discuss, argue, or coddle them into the gospel - "LET THEM BE ACCURSED." Give them the gospel if you like - that would be good, but drop it at that and allow them your leave - depart - don't encourage - move away from them.

It seems to me that Paul feels these are confirmed in their error and that they will not change from their false doctrine. This false doctrine, by the way, is of their own making, not God's. They chose to reject God's truth and add their own methods to what they retained of the truth. Sound's rather like a cult to me.

2. What a responsibility each of us has, not only for ourselves, but for our families if we have one. It is our responsibility to watch every moment for false teaching that creeps into the lives of those we love and be assured that they do not retain that false teaching.

Years ago we were in a church that had a young seminarian as pastor. He was a great preacher and we often discussed his good sermon points on the way home.

As time went on, the seminary’s effects began to show. Toward the end of our time in that church we found we were talking to the kids more and more about the error that we had heard in the message. I felt that we were undermining the pastor, but it was his own error that required it. It was quite encouraging to see toward the end that the kids were picking out the error and were able to bring them up in our discussions after church.

See to it that you protect those that God has placed in your care.

This requires something from the father/husband - paying attention to what is going on in the service, what is going on in the Sunday school classes, and what is going on in the youth groups. You'd better be discussing all of these areas with your children/wife as you go through life.

Not only in the church setting, but beware what your family is exposed to in their relationships with the lost world.

school

friends

entertainment

social functions

all areas of life

3. We touched slightly on how we glorify God, but let's take a further look at this. Just how, in this life, can we glorify God?

a. Living a separated life so that those around us know that we follow Him and honor Him in our everyday life.

b. Giving of your material blessings - He gave you all you have so why not give a little back to Him to bring glory to Him?

c. Use your spiritual gift. The gifts were given to train the church for the work of the Lord, and through this we glorify Him. We acknowledge that we are gifted by Him and that we want to serve Him in this manner.

d. Children glorify God by being obedient, wives glorify God by submitting to your husbands, and husbands glorify God by loving your wife and raising the children in a proper manner.

e. As a church we glorify Him in all we do - at least that is the plan. In our worship services, in our Bible studies, in our potlucks - all should be done to shine forth upon Him.

f. In our personal relationships with the lost - all we do should reflect upon Him that has saved us, Him that has equipped us, and Him that has blessed us.

4. It seems that Paul is very serious about this - he even exaggerates to emphasize the seriousness of what he is saying. He says, even if an angel comes, even if an apostle comes to you, even if I come to you with another gospel - and then he repeats the end result of the false teacher twice when he brands them as accursed.

If he was this serious about it in the first nine verses, don't you think that it ought to be a very high priority with you in your personal life and/or your family life? If not, then you are to be warned of impending danger to yourself and to your family.

Many are the broken families in the church - families that accepted the standards of the world, families that trusted deficient teachers and preachers for truth in their working with the family.

The church’s divorce rate is equal to if not worse than the worlds - we bought what we were hearing in the media and what we weren't hearing in the pulpit. If we are trusting false teachers for our marriages, then surely we are trusting them for our child rearing and our personal spiritual lives.

Indeed, are we not trusting our salvation in some cases to the fluff and muff of the feel good preaching of our day? We have lost people coming into our congregations and hearing how they can fluff and puff their way through the spiritual life - what they aren't being told is that the fluff and puff life usually ends in a big poof or explosion somewhere down the line.

5. There is a term in verse two that in today’s society may need some explanation. Church. Today there are some that suggest this term means local assemblies of believers and nothing else. Others suggest that there are local assemblies that are local representations of THE CHURCH the body of Christ or the universal church.

Those that reject the teaching of the universal church are quite serious in their doctrine. So serious as to limit the ordinances to those of their particular local church or at best those that are members of another local church of their persuasion.

I have seen in their writings that they believe that there are other believers, that there are dead believers, and that there are the believers in their particular churches. They do not, however recognize the universal church - that teaching which recognizes all believers, of all faiths, of all times. Now, realize both sides recognize the existence of all these believers, but one sees this assemblage or faith as the body of Christ and those that reject the universal church teaching do not recognize all believers as belonging to one body or church.

Christ told the people that He would build his church - singular, not plural, thus we know He had a universal concept in mind as well as the local outworking of that one body.

6. It is of note to many that most of Paul's epistles commend the believers he addresses in some way, but the Galatians received none, thus indicating this man was on a serious kick to communicate something quickly and completely.

They say you can take a lot from what isn't said. It would be obvious to most that Paul is not really top notch proud of the way these people are living.

Does that give rise to how a pastor/teacher should communicate with his people - especially when they are living incorrectly? I think the real sin in the church today is due to the lack of the people being told that they ought not be doing what they are and telling them what they ought to be doing when they aren't.

We attended a church for the first time and the pastor really blasted the people for the way they were living their lives in the neighborhood. He ended by mentioning the broken window that the church had experienced that week. He said something to the effect of the following, "Those people that broke out that single window should have broken every window in this church, maybe then you would have gotten the message that things need to change here."

I called him later in the day and asked him if he still had a job. He had laid it on the line - he had called the people up short on their sin. Oh how this is needed in our churches across the country!

7. Consider the false teachers. They know who it was that planted these churches - Paul himself. They may even have known Paul personally. They considered his teaching and found it lacking, they considered his life and found it lacking (else why would they devalue his message), and they considered their own understanding and assumed they were superior in teaching to Paul.

How did they move from knowing a man of God and his message to rejecting that message and dreaming up their own gospel and then teaching that gospel fully knowing that it was counter to what an apostle had taught?

How did they make those decisions? How did they come to such conclusions? How did they justify placing themselves above one that was appointed by the Lord Himself?

Know two things. First there are those today that will set themselves up as above the pastor and church leaders. Secondly, know that there must be a quick reckoning or else false doctrine will spread quickly through your assembly.

Know one more thing. In our society, be very careful to consider the claims of one that questions pastoral leadership. Many pastors in our country need to be questioned. Don't reject a detractor just because they are detracting, but consider what is being set forth and compare it to the Word - then make a decision based on the Word.

8. To conclude this section I would like to share some information that I found in a commentary by Robert Deffinbaugh where he quotes Harold Bussell and his book Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians. (Galatians: The Gospel of God's Grace; Robert L. Deffinbaugh, Th.M.; Deffinbaugh@bible.org; Biblical Studies Press; 1998 )

Deffinbaugh via Bussell relates a truth that is not uncommonly held by many others that cults often are spawned by the orthodox protestant community. This is true via observable facts of history.

Bussell lists some of the men that had roots in normative Christianity that found themselves leaders of cults. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church was raised in a Presbyterian home. Jim Jones of the People's Temple, the group that committed mass suicide in South America was not only a pastor of a Disciples of Christ church and had at one time attended a Nazarene church. David Berg, the head of the Children of God was raised as a believer and was associated with a Christian and Missionary Alliance church. Paul Wierwille the founder of The Way came from reformed roots. He goes on to tell that Mary Baker Eddy and Charles Taze Russell of the Jehovah's Witnesses were both reared in Christian homes.

There are other minor cults that have leaders with similar backgrounds.

I trust that the church realizes the urgency of excising these aberrant teachings immediately before they spawn other isms and cults. The church can't stop all of it, but stopping it in the early stages and warning the believers will be a good start to stopping the growth of false teaching.

This atmosphere of acceptance of all the philosophies of our day into the church has had its detrimental effects to be sure. Humanism is strongly entrenched in the church's thinking even though we on the surface say we abhor its teaching. Indeed, it has replaced Godly principles in many cases.

Bussell suggests that though doctrine is usually critically different between truth and a cult, that the practice is often similar. I would go a step further and suggest that most of the cults, in their living, are more Scriptural than most churches. They are loving, caring and accepting communities that want to minister to the needs of those they contact.

Yes, you can say my church is that way, but really, is it? I have observed so many churches today that are closed to any outsiders coming into their midst. They may be tooth baring greeters, and they may even have their greeting times, but seldom is there any further contact with one that might wander into their midst.

There are others that push away new people with their hobby horse doctrines that don't really assist anyone that might want to fellowship with them. If you don't buy their hobby horse, you will certainly hear about it every service, and you might even get a double dose of it if you attend two services.

To finish this study I would suggest that Deffinbaugh has a seriously long study of Acts 15 and its relation to Galatians if you are interested. It can be found at http://www.bible.org in the Bible study section.

I might suggest that if you haven't been to this site you should give them a visit. It is a real work of love and a work that is outstanding in its effort to make information available to the believer. Some of the studies are geared to pastors but there is much to be gleaned by the layman as well.

He draws from this passage a definition and the characteristics of a cult. In short the cult is a group that thinks that they are truth and the only truth, usually brought to them by the leader. All others are damned. This is quite true. Most also from my experience are defective in the deity of Christ and/or the Trinity.

9. I would that we understand something about the Roman Catholic church. They seem to be part of our Christianity, or so our leaders are telling us, but as you consider what relationship the Roman church has with Protestants in general remember some of the following information. Also as you see great comings together of the Romans and the evangelicals, remember some of the following information. (Comings together as THE PASSION movie by Mel Gibson, a truly Catholic movie that was seized upon by millions of evangelicals and put millions of dollars in Gibson's pockets - nothing against him - great marketing!)

Many popes have reaffirmed in one way or another the declarations of Trent, or as we should view them the anathemas against us by the Catholic church. Gibson, during the turmoil over the movie admitted that he agreed with the issues of Trent.

The current Pope declared at the commemoration of the 450th anniversary of Trent that all their declarations were of value.

In 1566 the church listed the approved doctrines of Trent and they included the rejection of salvation by faith alone, the teaching that Christ's presence was in the Eucharist, that the elements of communion were symbolic only, that the host is not to be adored and praised, and that the only requirement for salvation is faith in the work of Christ.

Pope Pius IV (1559-1565) declared a summary of the Council's findings and declarations.

In this summary he restated that one must adhere to the seven sacraments, one must believe that the sacrifice in the Eucharist is propitiatory for the living and the dead, that the body and blood are substantially within the Eucharist elements as well as the soul and divinity of Christ. One must also believe in purgatory and the assistance of the faithful to those contained there in.

If this isn't enough to suggest evangelicals ought not buy the flurry of catholic ecumenism, one must also believe that the saints that are reigning with Christ are to be prayed to and that their relics must be venerated. Humm, if you want to venerate my hair you'd better get some quickly :-)

You must hold to the ever virginity of Mary and that images of Mary and Christ are to be honored and venerated. You must hold to the whole system of indulgences, as well as swear obedience to the Roman Pope. (This rather tightly relates to the supremacy of the Roman church over all other churches.)

The acceptance of the findings of councils is to be considered truth and all other teaching is to be anathematized as heresy and rejected.

I don't know how we are to relate to a church that teaches that the basis of salvation is other than faith in Christ work. I don't know how we can CO-OPERATIVELY work with a system that rejects the basics of our faith, in any form whether to evangelize or any other work.

Some work with the Roman church on the anti abortion plain - this even seems to be a disgusting union that is based on mutual disrespect and disagreement - how does this look to the lost that knows that the Roman church has anathematized the Protestants - how foolish can they think the Protestants are?