Preface To The Second Printing
1. Must God Plead With God?
   
2. How The Spirit Leads
   
3. Physical Reinforcements of Faith
   
4. Jesus' Physical and Spiritual Death
   
5. Is There Merit in Pain?
   
6. The Six Days of Creation
   
7. Adding Guilt to Anxiety
   
8. Wine and The Disciple
   
9. Revolution or Evolution
   
10. I Am That Disciple
    
11. When People Disagree
    
12. Is Unity Based Upon Seven Doctrines?
    
13. Our Seven Sacraments
    
14. Instrumental Music
    
15. The Mood of Worship
    
16. Justified Then Sanctified
    
17. Is Christian Our Name?
    
18. The Lord's Table
    
19. Righteousness That Exceeds
    
20. Neither Destroyed Nor Nailed To The Cross
    
21. The Right of Self-Protection
    
22. A Tree of Error
    
23. God is Limited
    
24. You Are Here
    
25. God is In Charge
    
26. Hook's Points
    
27. Lamentations of A Mediocre Preacher
    

A TREE OF ERROR

In our consideration of the distinctive teachings of various churches, we may at first think of each erroneous doctrine as having developed independently out of some mistaken scriptural interpretation. But that is not the case with most of the debatable issues through the centuries.

Doctrines have developed. One error has called for another either for its support, as a consequence, or in reaction to it. In the accompanying graphic illustration to this essay, I have pictured a tree of error. In simplistic manner, it shows the relationship of many distinctive doctrines. One developed out of the other just as each twig or branch of a tree grows out of another.

The trunk of the tree, or the beginning of error as far as this lesson is concerned, was Gnosticism. Gnosticism was the greatest philosophical threat to the revealed truth in the latter part of New Testament history. The epistles of John cannot be understood without an awareness of the Gnostic philosophy and influence. Paul seems to be countering some of their prevalent ideas in his letters to Timothy, the Ephesians, and the Colossians.

In this brief survey, I am only setting forth an outline of development with no pretense of giving detailed investigation or refutation of any one facet. And I am pruning off the branch concerning spirit in contrast to the flesh. You may be challenged to develop that part of the tree.

There were many aspects to the Gnostic teachings, but the key proposition was that matter, the flesh, and all that pertains to either are evil and that spirit, the opposing reality, is good. To the Gnostic, sin is not what man has done, but the nature of man in the body, and redemption is man's effort to secure emancipation from the flesh.

Since the flesh was considered to be evil, to accommodate the flesh with pleasure would be contamination, but to destroy the flesh through privation, pain, and discipline would be purifying. As the ascetic life was considered as a way of purifying, many accepted asceticism as a holier way of life.

Some devout men separated themselves from society in this ascetic life, becoming hermits. In more organized form, this developed into monasticism, a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience secluded from society. Not only were people separated physically in monasteries, but also a system of holy orders separated many of the pious into special groups. In holy orders they were thought to have a more sure reach of heaven because they deprived themselves of physical and social pleasures, including marriage and sexual fulfillment.

The concept of merit in pain developed through this view of fleshly purging. Persons were called upon to do some act of penance as a payment, or fine, to relieve temporal punishment for their sins. The Sacrament of Penance was supposed to remove the eternal punishment, but not the debt of temporal punishment. If, however, a person should die still guilty of venial sin, he would necessarily endure a period of purging by suffering in purgatory until satisfaction for his temporal sin was met.

A way of avoidance of that purgatorial cleansing was devised, however. One could do works of merit or acts of contrition by which he could obtain either partial or plenary indulgence. The indulgence was not a license to sin, but it was a means of storing up indulgences to be effective after death or to draw upon the merit of others. Some persons, supposedly, lived such meritorious lives that they had credits, as it were, to spare. These works of supererogation allowed their credits to be stored in the treasury of merit for disposal by the church. From this treasury, the contrite soul, by his acts of contrition, might receive indulgence to shorten his suffering in purgatory.

Since sexual fulfillment was considered as a part of the evil nature of the flesh, celibacy came to be considered as the higher road to holiness, particularly through the holy orders. From this grew the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, for it would have been profane to think of the Mother of God as having been sullied by the taint of sin-even through motherhood as a wife.

If sin was the nature of man, then there could be no question about original sin. All were supposed to be born guilty of Adam's sin. But an exception had to be made. How could the sinless Jesus be born of a mother who bore the guilt of Adam? The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception became a necessary explanation. She was not conceived in sin, they concluded, but was "full of grace" so as to avoid the possibility of passing original sin on to her Son.

Another accommodation had to be made. For God to consign an unbaptized infant to everlasting torment for no fault of its own would seem to be unjust. So, a bordering place to heaven, limbo, was conceived. There the infant supposedly enjoys a state of natural happiness although not allowed to see the presence of God.

Ordinarily, the infant was to be baptized. The priest received the infant brought for baptism at the door of the church, breathed upon its face, and exorcised the evil spirit. This exorcism, according to Augustine, was because of the existence of original sin. Baptism was for the remission of sins; so, it was thought necessary to baptize the infant. This baptism was thought to accomplish more than just the forgiveness of sins, however. The sinful nature of the child had to be changed; so, the concept of baptismal regeneration was devised. Since baptism makes one a part of the church, infant membership was accepted in a conditional manner though it was not of the child's own will. Full membership came only after the rite of confirmation.

In time, others, accepting the premise of original sin, reasoned that a person is born totally depraved, unable to change his own state. Such persons would plead at the altar for God to send down his regenerating spirit to save them. Thus they had a saving experience by the direct operation of God on the heart. Since this was a work of the Spirit, a person would not know when he was saved except that he was given a feeling as evidence of pardon.

Still others, accepting the premise of original sin and total depravity, declared that the unregenerated person could not even choose to do good or to take a step toward God. He had to depend upon God's election. God chose those he predestined. Only those of his predestination received his grace. Since it was an act of God, it was irresistible. It was an irresistible experience of grace through the direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the unregenerated one. Faith was considered as a gift, so, as far as man's part was concerned, it was regeneration by faith alone.

If God predestined persons of his own election and his grace was irresistible, then nothing could prevent the ultimate salvation of that chosen one. Thus came the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, otherwise spoken of as the impossibility of apostasy and once saved-always saved.

Thus we have seen the tree of error grow from the trunk of Gnostic dualism through branches and twigs. No doubt, you recognized doctrinal errors in this tree which are the distinctive teachings of various churches. Yet each of these doctrines derived from a wrong premise. Complicated systems of teaching involving various combinations of these errors have produced and perpetuated historic churches.

From the Genesis account of creation, we learn that every plant brings forth after its kind. Jesus reaffirmed that in a spiritual context: "So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit" (Matt. 7:18f). Isn't it time for us to dig up this old tree of error, go back to the original seed which is the word of God, and let the True Vine and the branches flourish again from its planting?

We have complicated the gospel and the requirements of the Lord. Honest men and women are going back to the Bible for a new, unbiased look. They are discovering old treasures of truth long tarnished and obscured by the accumulated rubbish of centuries of interpretations and pronouncements. They, being more loyal to truth than their systems, are discovering a new freedom in the grace of Christ. Renewal is on the march! Don't let it pass you by, leaving you in the empty shell of a lifeless system.