Six-Twelve Ministries

Distinguishing Between Error and Heresy
By J Neil Daniel

The distinction between theological error and formal heresy is crucial in understanding the dynamics of Christian doctrine and the implications of divergent beliefs within the faith. Theological error refers to incorrect or misguided interpretations of Scripture or doctrine that do not necessarily undermine the core tenets of Christianity. In contrast, formal heresy involves the denial or distortion of essential Christian doctrines that are foundational to salvation and the Christian faith.

Not every theological error rises to the level of formal heresy because heresy, by definition, attacks the foundational truths about God and the work of redemption. Core doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, justification by faith alone in Christ alone, and the inspiration of Scripture are central to Christian orthodoxy. Denying one or more of these key doctrines places one outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity and constitutes heresy.

Being wrong on one or even several points does not automatically make one a false teacher or a heretic. The critical factor is whether the error pertains to essential doctrines of the faith necessary for salvation. Errors on non-essential matters, while they may require correction and discussion, do not jeopardize one's standing within orthodox Christianity.

Moreover, the response to theological error is significant. A person who holds an erroneous belief but is willing to receive correction and align their views with Scripture demonstrates a humble and teachable spirit, distinguishing them from a heretic who persists in their error despite correction. The New Testament emphasizes the importance of correcting those in error with gentleness and patience, aiming for restoration rather than immediate condemnation (2 Timothy 2:25-26).

The distinction between formal and material heresy further clarifies this issue. Formal heresy involves the conscious and deliberate rejection of an essential doctrine, knowing that it contradicts orthodox Christian teaching. Material heresy, however, refers to holding heretical beliefs out of ignorance without the conscious intention to oppose established doctrine. Material heretics, when shown their error, may recant and align with orthodox belief, thus not being guilty of heresy in the moral sense. To illustrate, most new Christians typically have a modalist view of God, and only later come to embrace biblical Trinitarianism.

In summary, not every theological error constitutes formal heresy, and being wrong on certain points does not automatically make one a false teacher or heretic. The distinction lies in the nature of the doctrines involved and the individual's response to correction. This understanding calls for discernment, patience, and a commitment to biblical truth in addressing theological differences within the Christian community.

Concerning the controversy around the Olympics Opening Ceremony the other night.
There has been a lot of confusion around just what was really being represented, and the Olympics and sources close to the Olympic organizers haven't cleared things up, either. Some saying it was meant to be the Last Supper being represented, while others say it wasn't the Last Supper, but the Feast of Dionysius. Regardless of what it actually was, here are my thoughts after having read things from both the Olympics, news outlets, secular sources, and other Christians.

There are really only three options as to what it was:
1) It was as they say simply the Feast of Dionysius. But if that is so, then it was an open and unapologetic encouragement of drunkenness and licentiousness and pushing the LGBTQ+ agenda on worldwide TV. Which this is also a mockery of Christianity as they are saying it's wrong to present Christian, biblical values on world television but perfectly fine to push a worldly agenda.
2) It was a direct mocking of the Last Supper.
3) It was a synchronization of the Feast of Dionysius with the Last Supper. Which is a blatant mockery still as the world attempts to "erase" and "reinvent" who Jesus was and what He taught.
So all told, none of the three options are good, and all three take a shot at and mock the Christian faith.

We as believers shouldn't be surprised. Jesus tells us we will be hated (John 15:18). Peter says there will be mockers in the last days (2 Peter 3:3). The Psalmist says that the nations will plot "a vain thing" against the Lord (Psalm 2). Paul says that there will be unrighteous, ungodly behavior as people "suppress the truth" of God and act in sinful ways, and that those who act sinfully will encourage sinful behavior (Romans 1:18-32).
We as believers should use this as an opportunity to share the Gospel. Instead of getting mad and attacking those who participated or supported this, we should respond by sharing the Truth in love and give a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15-16). We also need to remember that our battle is not against the people who were involved or who supported this, but rather our battle is against the spiritual forces of wickedness that drive this behavior (Ephesians 6:12). We must take up the Sword of the Spirit and fight expose this darkness (Ephesians 5:11) by proclaiming the Gospel and Truth of God's Word.

The world may mock, but God is on His throne, His will will be done, and those who reap sin will sow what they reap.

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."
-Galatians 6:7-8 NASB95

-Daniel-

Hearing a medium say that her “familiar spirits” told her that the best proof that ghosts exist was the fact that Jesus was the greatest ghost to ever exist (after His crucifixion) was the final nail in the coffin that led me out of the paranormal and into a realization that the paranormal is a demonic realm.
-Daniel-

The Biblical Prohibition of Profanity
J Neil Daniel

An examination of relevant biblical passages reveals a robust case against the use of profanity and vulgar language, as outlined in Scripture. This analysis demonstrates a consistent biblical ethic promoting pure and edifying communication.

Ephesians 4:29: The apostle Paul instructs believers to avoid "unwholesome talk" (Greek: sapros logos). Biblical scholars interpret this term to include obscene and abusive language. The focus is on speech that is destructive rather than edifying, emphasizing the need for communication that builds up the listener rather than tearing them down.

Colossians 3:8: Paul explicitly tells Christians to rid themselves of "filthy language" (Greek: aischrologia). Greek scholars define this term as "vile or obscene language, foul talk," encompassing all forms of profanity. This directive underscores the necessity of maintaining verbal purity as a reflection of one's inner spiritual state.

Ephesians 5:4: Paul prohibits "obscenity" (Greek: aischrotēs), which authoritative Greek lexicons define as language that "flouts social and moral standards." This injunction directly addresses profane speech that violates social norms, reinforcing the biblical call for language that upholds societal and moral decency.

While the Bible does contain instances of seemingly vulgar language and imagery, particularly in prophetic books like Ezekiel, these were used for rhetorical effect to shock audiences, not as casual speech. The prophetic usage aimed to provoke repentance and convey the severity of Israel's sin, rather than endorse profane language.

Although some argue that profanity is culturally relative, Scripture provides timeless principles that can be applied across cultures. Believers are called to avoid speech considered vulgar or profane in any given context, aligning their language with the overarching biblical ethic of purity and edification.

The biblical emphasis on pure speech and the avoidance of corrupt talk (Colossians 4:6) is difficult -- impossible, actually -- to reconcile with the casual use of profanity. The call for speech seasoned with grace and wisdom further underscores the expectation for believers to maintain verbal integrity.

In summary, then, while there may be debate on specific applications, Scripture clearly promotes pure, wholesome speech and prohibits language widely deemed profane or obscene. The biblical ideal is communication that builds up rather than tears down, reflecting the transformative power of a redeemed heart.

“Occultism (or psychicism) is in its truest sense spiritistic (i.e., demonic) supernaturalism. It can come under the name of "ascended masters,' "beings of light," "UFO" entities, the "higher self," psychic powers, or a hundred other guises-but the ultimate plan and purpose remain the same...deception and bo***ge under the guise of "God" and "spirituality."
-Wilson & Weldon
Psychic Forces and Occult Shock: A Biblical View

If you throw out the New Testament saying it isn't a historically reliable document, then you must throw out the vast majority of other ancient historical works as well.

Many critics of Christianity make many claims against the reliability of the Bible, especially against the New Testament. Here are two such claims and responses to them.

Claim 1: The church has created a biased translation of the original texts to fit a modern narrative or narrative that they want to push.

Response: The majority of our modern translations, including all mainstream translations (ESV, NASB, CSB, NKJV, LSB, etc) are translated directly from the original languages and the manuscripts that we have. Critics claim that the Bible is changed from translation to translation as it is translated, but that is simply not true. While we do have different styles of translation (dynamic vs formal vs paraphrase), there are different ways to convey the same meaning using different sets of words (slang vs informal vs formal for example).
The accuracy of our New Testament translations is open to study and interpretation by Greek and ancient history scholars of any background, whether they are Christian or secular.

Claim 2: We don't have the original manuscripts so we don't know what they actually said and therefore can't trust our modern translations.

Response: This line of argumentation, by necessity, would require that the critic ALSO throw out the vast majority of ancient historical documents as we don't have the original manuscript of many ancient documents.
For example:
-Thucydid's "History" (on the Peloponnesian War): 1,300 years between the original writing and the first copy we have. And we only have eight copies.
-Tacitus' "Annals (Roman history): 1,000 between original writing and the first copy we have. We only have about 20 copies.

The majority of scholars agree that these are all historically reliable and accurate works.

This is compared to the New Testament whose letters/books were written within 20-100 years of Jesus walking the earth, and our earliest copies date to within 100-200 years of the original writings.
(Plutarch's record of the life of Alexander the Great was written over 400 years after the events happened, yet the records it contains are considered historically reliable and accurate)
-The Gospel of Mark, for example, was written about 60AD and the earliest manuscripts we have of it date from around 200AD. We also have thousands of copies of manuscripts for the New Testament books that faithfully agree with each other in the majority of cases.
-We have over 5,600 original language manuscripts of books of the New Testament. The New Testament is the best attested ancient work in the world. And our modern translations are faithful translations of these original manuscripts.
This means that if a translator or translation team made a purposeful change or omission or biased translation, it would be quickly recognized and call out/reject that translation (for example, the Passion translation).

We have more textual evidence for the historical reliability of the Bible than we do for any other ancient writing. The only reason anyone denies that the Bible is a historically reliable document is because the Bible is the foundation for Christianity. And because they have already decided that they hate Christians or that God doesn't exist (in their mind), they approach the historical reliability with an anti-Christian bias and have to claim that the Bible is unreliable or the people of the New Testament time were "people who didn't know how to write" or some other wild claim.

Most non-Christian historic documents are held as fact as innocent until proven guilty. But when it comes to the Bible, liberal scholars and non-Christian critics hold the New Testament as guilty until proven innocent.

“Satan and his horde of demons may be mimicking dead people. They do so for a malevolent, sinister purpose-to lead people away from the true Christ and God of the Bible. In the process of doing this, they propagate doctrines of demons, including ideas like: death is not the be feared; all people go to heaven, regardless of religion; and the dead can communicate with the living.”
-Dr. Ron Rhodes

“because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
-Romans 1:19-23 NASB95

The paranormal. A topic that has become a mainstream fascination in society today. What is it? Is there proof of it? Does the Bible have answers concerning what the paranormal is? Six-Twelve founder and apologist, Daniel McAdams, explores these questions and more in this talk.

The Paranormal: Does the Bible Have Answers? The paranormal. A topic that has become a mainstream fascination in society today. What is it? Is there proof of it? Does the Bible have answers concerning w...

This ought to be interesting.
Will write a follow up/response to it when it happens.
-Daniel-

Thoughts on Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development
By J Neil Daniel

John Henry Newman's theory of doctrinal development is a significant intellectual tool for understanding how Christian doctrine evolves over time. This theory is articulated in his 1845 book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Newman outlines seven criteria to judge whether the evolution of a doctrine is legitimate (i.e., a development) or corrupt (a corruption). Newman's criteria for doctrinal development are Preservation of Type, Continuity of Principles, Power of Assimilation, Logical Sequence, Anticipation of Its Future, Conservative Action upon Its Past, and Chronic Vigour.

In addressing the evolution of Christian beliefs over time, Newman argues that doctrines not explicitly stated in the early Church could still be considered authentic if they developed naturally and legitimately from the original apostolic teaching. This concept of development is crucial for understanding how doctrines that are central to Catholicism, such as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, which are not explicitly found in the early Church or Scripture, came to be defined over the centuries.

While influential, Newman's theory may be criticized as a way to justify the absence of certain Catholic beliefs from the early Church's witness, suggesting a misuse of the development idea. This critique hinges on several key points.

Historical Continuity vs. Innovation

Newman's theory often obscures the essential distinction between organic doctrinal development and outright innovation. Ideally, the evolution of doctrine should involve elucidating implicit beliefs within the foundational Christian teachings, rather than introducing novel beliefs that lack solid grounding in the practices and precepts of the early Church. There is a significant concern that Newman's criteria are overly permissive, allowing for doctrines that are innovations rather than true developments, thereby disrupting the continuity with the apostolic faith.

The Role of Scripture

A critical issue with Newman's approach is his emphasis on doctrinal development that may extend beyond the explicit content of Scripture. This can undermine the principle of sola Scriptura, which is a cornerstone of Protestant Christianity. Newman's methodology allows for the introduction of doctrines that not only diverge from the historical teachings of the early Church but also lack direct scriptural basis, leading to doctrinal shifts that are not anchored in the biblical record.

The Authority of the Church

Newman places considerable emphasis on the Church's Magisterium as the guiding force in doctrinal development. This perspective leads to a problematic dependency on ecclesiastical authority for justifying doctrinal changes, which might not have clear links to either the early Church's teachings or Scripture. Such an approach risks endorsing teachings that might be construed as doctrinal innovations rather than developments, raising concerns about the potential for significant deviations from the foundational beliefs of the apostolic faith.

The Criteria for Development

While Newman offers seven criteria to differentiate between authentic doctrinal development and corruption, these criteria themselves are subject to criticism for their subjectivity and potential for biased application. They can be interpreted in a manner that tends to support the validation of certain doctrines as developments despite a lack of robust historical evidence or clear early doctrinal roots. This subjective application can sometimes lead to the acceptance of modern beliefs as continuations of ancient traditions, even when such connections are at best tenuous.

Conclusion

While Newman's theory of doctrinal development has profoundly influenced Catholic theology, it has also sparked significant debate and criticism for potentially justifying the introduction of novel doctrines as developments. These critiques underscore the tension between the need for doctrinal evolution to respond to new challenges and the imperative to maintain a clear and faithful connection to the foundational teachings of Christianity. Moving forward, it could be beneficial to refine Newman’s criteria to enhance their objectivity and ensure that they more strictly enforce continuity with core apostolic teachings. Such revisions might help mitigate concerns about the introduction of unfounded innovations while still allowing for genuine growth in doctrinal clarity and adaptation of expression.

“Whenever someone prefaces a statement by “the Lord told me” or “the Spirit revealed to me” and is referring to anything other than Scripture they have in effect established a second canon for themselves, an additional stream of revelation. But, as William Bridge wisely noted, “who doth not know that the Devil will speak an hundred Truths, that he may crowd in one lye amongst them”.”
-Sinclair Ferguson

When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speak of Jesus, we must always remember, they are talking about a “Jesus” who was created by their own religion rather than the Jesus who is revealed to us in the pages of Scripture. The Mormons serve a false Jesus—a Jesus who has no power to save sinners. We must point people to the true Jesus, the Savior of the world.
—Josh Buice



Read his article on the blog this week: https://g3min.org/the-false-jesus-of-mormonism/

Problems with Catholic Sacerdotalism
By J. Neil Daniel

Arguments against Catholic sacerdotalism, which posits a distinct, ordained priesthood as necessary intermediaries between God and humanity, primarily draw from biblical, theological, and historical perspectives. The Catholic system contradicts the New Testament's teachings on the priesthood of all believers and the sole mediatorship of Christ.

Biblical Arguments

Priesthood of All Believers: The New Testament emphasizes the priesthood of all believers, suggesting that every Christian has direct access to God through Christ. This is articulated in passages like 1 Peter 2:5,9, which describe believers collectively as a "holy priesthood" and a "royal priesthood." This universal priesthood negates the need for a special class of ordained priests to mediate between God and people.

Christ as the Sole Mediator: The New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and humanity. By fulfilling the Old Testament priesthood and becoming the ultimate sacrifice for sin, Christ has made the sacerdotal system obsolete. The tearing of the temple veil at Christ's crucifixion vividly symbolizes direct access to God through faith in Jesus.

Absence of a New Testament Priesthood: The New Testament does not establish a distinct, ordained priesthood but rather focuses on the ministry of all believers. Indeed, the term "priest" is deliberately avoided in relation to church leadership in the New Testament, underscoring the shift from the Old Testament sacerdotal system to the new covenant in Christ.

Theological Arguments

Sacerdotalism and the Sacraments: Sacerdotalism places undue emphasis on the role of priests in administering sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and confession, as necessary channels of grace. This perspective diminishes the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and the believer's direct relationship with God.

Intermediary Role of Priests: The concept of priests as necessary intermediaries for accessing divine grace is contrary to the New Testament's teaching on the believer's direct access to God through Christ. This undermines the efficacy of Christ's atonement and the believer's personal relationship with God.

Historical Arguments

Development of Sacerdotalism: The development of a distinct, ordained priesthood with exclusive rights to mediate grace represents a departure from early Christian practice. The Catholic system evolved over time, influenced by non-biblical traditions and the institutionalization of the church.

Reformation Critiques: The Protestant Reformation rightfully challenged the Catholic Church's sacerdotal system, advocating for a return to the biblical model of the priesthood of all believers and rejecting the notion of a hierarchical priesthood as necessary mediators of grace. Reformers like Martin Luther emphasized the believer's direct access to God through faith in Christ.

In summary, arguments against Catholic sacerdotalism are grounded in the belief that it contradicts the New Testament's teachings on the priesthood of all believers, the sole mediatorship of Christ, and the direct access of believers to God. The Catholic system unnecessarily intermediates the believer's relationship with God and places undue emphasis on the role of ordained priests in administering sacraments, thereby diminishing the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and the believer's personal faith relationship with God.

“There are other spirits who have influence on the minds of men, besides the Holy Ghost. We are directed not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits, whether they be of God [1 John 4:1]. There are many false spirits, exceedingly busy with men, who often transform themselves into angels of light, and do in many wonderful ways, with great subtlety and power, mimic the operations of the Spirit of God.”
-Jonathan Edwards