January 2026.
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Peter 2:1 (KJV, emphasis added)
The passage in 2 Peter 2 speaks about teachers who “privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.” In the history of Christian interpretation, the key issue has been what it means to “deny the Lord.” We highlighted this in Part 1 of the three-part study of 2 Peter 2.
We will walk through this in three parts:
- What does 2 Peter 2 mean in context
- How the early Church Fathers identified “damnable heresies.”
- Whether modern “no-Lordship salvation” teaching could and does fall into that category of a damnable heresy
1. The Meaning of “Denying the Lord” in 2 Peter 2
The phrase “denying the Lord that bought them” refers to rejecting Christ’s authority, identity, or saving work. In the Fathers and later orthodox theology, denial of Christ normally took three forms:
- Denying who Christ is (His divine nature)
- Denying what Christ did (His saving work)
- Denying what it means to belong to Him (obedience to His Lordship)
Notice that the chapter also connects false doctrine with moral license:
- “Many shall follow their pernicious ways.”
- “They promise them liberty, while they themselves are servants of corruption.”
Peter links false teaching about Christ (a damnable heresy) with teaching that excuses sin in Christians. And when evangelicals and others presuppose that all real Christians live in constant daily sin, is that not a damnable heresy according to the early church and Peter?
2. “Damnable Heresies” Identified by the Early Church
The early church writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo treated “damnable heresies” primarily as teachings that destroy the gospel itself. Examples they consistently condemned included:
1. Denial of Christ’s true deity
- Arianism
- Claimed Christ was a created being like us.
2. Denial of Christ’s true humanity
- Docetism
3. Corruption of the gospel itself
- Gnosticism
4. False views of Christ’s sonship
- Adoptionism
5. Antinomian distortions of grace, which allow for ongoing sin in the life of the believer
Some sects taught that salvation freed believers to live however they wished. The Fathers frequently associated this with the warnings of 2 Peter 2 and Jude. These represented damnable heresies.
For example, Irenaeus explicitly says certain Gnostics taught that conduct did not matter, which he called destructive heresy because it separated salvation from obedience. But this is what most of Christianity looks like in our day, where the mass of believers are taught and believe that they will sin daily all of their lives and that the grace of God will magically cover their ongoing sins. They falsely believe that grace excuses their ongoing sin and that God has already forgiven them of their future sins. If that is not an invitation to sin freely, then what is? This thinking makes Christ a minister of sin. See my article, Is Christ A Minister of Sin?”/
3. The Modern “No-Lordship Salvation” Debate
I asked ChatGPT to address the modern No-Lordship-Salvation debate. ChatGPT responded, your question about Charles C. Ryrie brings us to a modern theological debate called Free Grace Theology. This view teaches roughly:
- Salvation comes by believing Christ saves.
- Submission to Christ as Lord is not necessary for salvation, though it should follow later.
Theologians such as John MacArthur strongly opposed this view, arguing that faith necessarily includes submission to Christ’s lordship. This controversy is often called the Lordship Salvation debate. In my book, When Lies Become Truth, and on my website, I complimented Mr. MacArthur for standing against those who teach no-Lordship salvation.
4. Would the Early Church Consider “No-Lordship Salvation” Heretical?
If we apply the earliest Church Fathers’ logic, several observations emerge. The early Church never separated faith from obedience as many Christians do today. The answer is yes; they would most likely call the no-Lordship doctrine heresy, according to ChatGPT. Are you listening?
For example:
Clement of Rome
“Let us therefore obey His glorious and holy will.”
Ignatius of Antioch
“Those who profess Christ will be recognized by their deeds.”
Irenaeus of Lyons
True believers “do the works of righteousness.”
For them:
Faith. Repentance. Obedience. All these were inseparable aspects of conversion. That means Christ is Lord, not just Savior.
The early church Fathers strongly condemned teachings that justified ongoing sin in the life of the professing Christian. Might that explain why teaching and preaching in evangelical churches today rarely consider what early church leaders taught?
When teachers said that grace allowed immoral living, the early church fathers frequently cited 2 Peter 2 to rebuke those who taught false doctrines. In that sense, the early Church might see a doctrine that assures salvation while minimizing repentance and obedience as dangerous and potentially heretical, per ChatGPT.
Honestly, why is it so hard to state what is plainly evident? The early church would almost certainly have considered this teaching heretical. That is my opinion.
But they would likely distinguish between:
- A poorly worded theological system
- A doctrine that truly permits lawlessness, which is the truth of why this is so dangerous
Only the second would clearly fall under “damnable heresy.”
5. Other Errors Today That Fit the 2 Peter 2 Pattern
Based on the early Church criteria, the most serious modern distortions would be teachings that undermine:
1. Christ’s identity
Examples:
- Progressive denials of Christ’s divinity
- Treating Jesus merely as a moral teacher
2. The necessity of repentance
Some modern preaching removes repentance of sin from conversion entirely, or redefines it so that it no longer means forsaking sin.
3. Moral transformation
Teachings that imply:
- A Christian can live permanently and substantially in open rebellion and sin
- Holiness is optional
This covers almost all Christian denominations today, doesn’t it?
4. Prosperity gospel distortions
The movement often called the Prosperity Gospel can distort the gospel by redefining salvation in terms of material blessing.
5. Universalism
The belief that all people are automatically saved regardless of faith, obedience, and personal righteousness. Much of evangelicalism today teaches this exact same error but limits it to those who accept Christ, even when there is no evidence of righteous living to speak of, but rather evidence of ongoing sinfulness.
6. A Balanced Conclusion
From the standpoint of historic Christianity:
- The core damnable heresies are those that destroy the gospel or deny Christ.
- The early Church would be deeply suspicious of any teaching separating salvation from obedience, per ChatGPT. I find that hard to believe. I think the early church would have boldly called out these false teachers.
- But historically, they tended to reserve the label “damnable heresy” for Christological and gospel-denying doctrines, not every theological imbalance. What we talked about is not a theological imbalance but a clear and present danger, as well as a distortion of the gospel and its intent.
That said, 2 Peter 2 warns strongly about teachers who promise freedom while enabling sin, and the Church has always needed to guard against that. Today, it is actually embraced as orthodox, isn’t it?
We will now consider the following:
- How 2 Peter 2 parallels the book of Jude almost verse by verse and clarifies what the false teachers were doing.
- What the earliest post-apostolic Christians believed about repentance and salvation (very different from many modern evangelical formulas).
- A list of doctrines the early Church unanimously treated as salvation-destroying heresies.
Number 1. The Parallel Between 2 Peter 2 and the Book of Jude
Scholars have long noted that 2 Peter 2 and the Epistle of Jude share similar language and examples. Many believe one writer used the other, or that both drew on a common early Christian warning against false teachers. Here are some of the parallels in the chart that follows.
| 2 Peter 2 | Jude |
| False teachers secretly introduce destructive heresies | Certain men crept in unnoticed |
| Denying the Lord who bought them | Denying our only Lord and Master |
| Many follow their sensuality | Turning grace into licentiousness |
| Angels who sinned judged | Angels who left their proper domain |
| Sodom and Gomorrah example | Sodom and Gomorrah example |
| False teachers follow Balaam | False teachers follow Balaam |
| Clouds without water | Clouds without rain |
| Promising freedom while enslaved to corruption/sin | Flatter people for advantage |
The key phrase in Jude 4 explains the problem very clearly:
“Certain men crept in unawares… turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (KJV)
The core issue was not merely doctrinal error, but a distortion of grace that justified sinful living. The early church consistently read 2 Peter 2 and Jude together as warnings against:
- False teachers
- Moral corruption and excusing ongoing sin in the believer
- Doctrinal distortion that leads to immorality
2. What the Earliest Christians Taught About Repentance and Salvation
The generation immediately after the apostles is often called the Apostolic Fathers. Their writings show how the earliest churches understood the gospel. Here are representative examples, which ChatGPT provided.
Clement of Rome (c. AD 95)
He taught that salvation involves repentance from sin and obedience.
“Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is… bringing repentance to the whole world.”
Faith was never presented as mere intellectual belief. True faith implied obedience to God and the forsaking of wickedness.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107)
Ignatius repeatedly emphasized that those who belong to Christ must live accordingly.
“It is better to be silent and be a Christian than to talk and not be one.” He judged authenticity by life and obedience.
Polycarp
Polycarp wrote: “He who raised Christ from the dead will raise us also, if we do His will and walk in His commandments.”
Again, the pattern appears:
Faith
Repentance
Obedience
These were inseparable aspects of conversion and of being born again. Yet many evangelicals today think that saving faith doesn’t demand fidelity, obedience, repentance from all sin, and faithfulness to God.
Irenaeus of Lyons
Irenaeus attacked teachers who claimed moral behavior did not matter. He wrote that such teachers abused grace and corrupted the gospel. This connects directly with Jude and 2 Peter 2. And this is a damnable heresy.
3. Heresies the Early Church Treated as Gospel-Destroying
By the 2nd–4th centuries, the church had identified several doctrines as salvation-destroying because they undermined Christ’s person or work. Here are the major ones.
1. Gnosticism
Key errors:
- Salvation through secret knowledge
- Denial that Christ truly became flesh
- Moral libertinism (freedom to continue to sin without eternal consequences) in some sects
This was the largest heresy the early church faced. It appears to be the most influential heresy today.
2. Arianism
Promoted by Arius. Opposed by Athanasius of Alexandria. The church believed that if Christ were not truly God, He could not save humanity.
3. Adoptionism
This denied Christ’s eternal sonship.
4. Docetism
If Christ did not truly become man, then the incarnation and redemption collapse.
5. Pelagianism
Opposed by Augustine of Hippo. This error supposedly denied humanity’s need for grace. See my articles on Original Sin, Titus, and How Free Is Our Will?
4. How This Framework Applies to Today
Using the early church’s categories, modern errors tend to fall into three major patterns.
1. Denying Christ’s identity
Examples today:
- Liberal theology reducing Jesus to a moral teacher
- Some progressive Christianity denying His divinity
2. Distorting the gospel
Examples:
- Salvation through works
- Universalism
- Prosperity gospel
What is “salvation through works,” and what Christian denominations actually teach this? The key point is that whether a doctrine is a “damnable heresy” or a “distortion of the gospel” depends heavily on which Christian tradition is making the judgment. That should surprise no one.
From a conservative evangelical or Reformed perspective, when people criticize “salvation by works,” they usually aren’t referring to churches that teach that obedience, holiness, the sacraments, or good works matter. Rather, they mean any theological system understood to make human works the basis for earning justification before God. But what about the conditions of salvation such as repentance and faith? How do they fit into this?
What groups are often accused of teaching salvation by works?
Conservative Protestants have sometimes directed this criticism of ‘salvation by works’ toward:
- Roman Catholic Church
- Eastern Orthodox Church
- Oriental Orthodox Churches
- And any understanding of the gospel similar to the early church
However, those churches would strongly reject the charge that they teach people can earn salvation apart from God’s grace. Catholics and Orthodox generally teach that salvation begins with God’s grace and that faith must be lived out through obedience, participation in the life of the Church, and perseverance. Full Calvinism would, of course, view any efforts on our part to be false and ineffectual because God alone is responsible for a person’s salvation. They call it monergism. Many evangelicals do teach that we must believe in Christ and that is the only condition for us to be saved. They would also insist that belief or faith in Christ is not a work, even though it is a condition of being saved. This is a form of synergism.
Likewise, some Protestants have accused certain restorationist groups of teaching a form of works-righteousness, including:
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, per ChatGPT
- United Pentecostal Church International (by some critics, because of its teachings on baptism and salvation)
Again, the groups themselves would not describe their beliefs as “earning salvation.”
Groups associated with universalism are?
Universalism is the belief that ultimately all people will be saved. Historically, the denomination most clearly associated with universalism in North America was the:
- Universalist Church of America
In the twentieth century, it merged with the:
- American Unitarian Association
to form the:
- Unitarian Universalist Association
Today, however, the Unitarian Universalists are generally not considered a Christian denomination in the traditional sense.
Within churches that identify as Christian, universalism is more commonly held by some theologians or clergy than as the official doctrine of entire denominations. Examples include some individuals within:
- Episcopal Church
- Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
- United Church of Christ
But these denominations generally do not officially require universalism as a doctrine.
What was the early Church primarily fighting against?
When 2 Peter 2 speaks of “damnable heresies,” the earliest Christians were usually concerned with teachings that altered Christ’s identity, denied the incarnation or resurrection, or promoted a fundamentally different gospel. Examples include:
- Gnosticism
- Arianism
- Marcionism
Whether modern disputes over justification, sacraments, free will, predestination, or perseverance rise to that same level is a matter of significant disagreement among Christians.
Salvation by or through works summary
Christians have generally been taught that the worst heresy imaginable is this one. Sometimes it is called Pelagianism, salvation by works, or works righteousness. The most dangerous idea behind this false doctrine is that salvation is unconditional. The early church, before Augustine, did not believe in or teach unconditional salvation. See my articles on the role of conditions in salvation, especially this one: “Causa finalis & sine qua non – that not without which and that for the sake of which.
3. Turning grace into license to sin and get away with it
This is the exact problem addressed in Jude and 2 Peter. It includes teachings that imply:
- Repentance from sin is unnecessary
- Obedience is optional and is not necessary for salvation
- A Christian may continue to live in rebellion
The evangelical church in the USA has perfected turning grace into a license to sin with eternal impunity. And this explains the church’s carnality. It is full of unsaved professing Christians.
What the Early Church Would Probably Say to the Modern Church, according to ChatGPT
If the apostolic fathers were evaluating modern Christianity, they would likely warn about two opposite errors:
Legalism
- salvation earned by works (I am thinking that the number of people involved in this is somewhere between zero and a very small number)
Antinomianism
- salvation without repentance or obedience (I am thinking that the number of people involved in this is the large majority of professing Christians)
According to ChatGPT, the early church held a middle position:
- Salvation is by grace
- received through faith
- producing repentance and obedience
The early church saw these as one integrated reality, not separate steps. But this is the problem with almost all evangelical Christianity today: it sees the first two bullet points as essential and the last one as optional (repentance and obedience).
Next, we will consider the following.
- How the early church interpreted 1 John 3 (“whoever is born of God does not commit sin”), which directly addresses ongoing sin in believers.
- The little-known shift in Western theology after Augustine that shaped modern evangelical views of sin and salvation.
Both are highly relevant to the concerns raised about modern evangelical teaching.
1. How the Early Church Understood 1 John 3
The key passage is: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin… and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:9 (KJV)
This verse has puzzled many modern readers because it seems to contradict 1 John 1:8 (“If we say we have no sin…”). But the early Church did not see a contradiction, nor do I. I have written an article on this verse, and it is on my website.
Their interpretation was surprisingly straightforward.
The Early Church Reading
The early Fathers generally interpreted 1 John 3 to mean that a true Christian does not continue living in sin.
In other words:
- Christians may stumble into sin
- But they do not persist in sinful living
This interpretation shows up repeatedly, according to ChatGPT.
Irenaeus of Lyons
Irenaeus taught that those born of God walk in righteousness and do not remain in sin. He saw John’s words as describing the moral transformation produced by new birth.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement explained the passage this way: The believer may fall temporarily, but ongoing sin is incompatible with being born of God. You might want to read that again… and again.
Origen
Origen interpreted the verse as referring to a pattern of life. He said the Christian does not live a life characterized by sin because the seed of God is within him.
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine interpreted the verse as: “Not sinning as a way of life.” He believed the passage referred to dominion of sin, not the possibility of individual acts. He also changed his mind later in his life and taught that all Christians sin daily.
The Key Early Christian Principle
The earliest church Fathers consistently taught that a believer may fall into sin. But a believer cannot remain in unrepentant sin. Good trees produce good fruit. That distinction mattered greatly to them. It protected two truths simultaneously:
- Christians still need grace and forgiveness.
- The new birth produces real moral transformation
2. The Major Shift in Western Theology After Augustine
This is one of the most important developments in church history.
The early Church (before the 5th century) tended to describe salvation like this:
- Christ defeats sin and death
- Believers are united to Christ and live in victory over sin
- The Holy Spirit transforms their lives
- Salvation is participation in new life
But after the Pelagian debates surrounding Augustine of Hippo, Western theology began emphasizing something different. It was not a change for the better. It was a new Orthodoxy.
The Pelagian Controversy
Augustine opposed a British monk named Pelagius. Pelagius taught that humans could obey God without special divine grace. This teaching became known as Pelagianism. Augustine strongly opposed this view and emphasized:
- humanity’s deep corruption as total depravity and total inability
- the necessity of divine grace to make us able to do as God commands
The Church at large largely sided with Augustine. But not so for the church in the East.
The Long-Term Result
Augustine’s theology introduced several emphases that shaped Western Christianity:
- Original sin as inherited guilt and depravity
- Humanity’s near-total inability to do good
- Grace as the decisive cause of salvation, which is heresy, is it not?
These ideas later influenced:
- medieval theology
- the Protestant Reformation
- modern evangelicalism
3. Two Different Frameworks of Salvation
By the Reformation, two frameworks had emerged.
The Earlier Patristic Model
Salvation was seen as:
- healing
- restoration
- transformation
Humans cooperate with grace. The goal is holiness and union with Christ.
The Later Western Model
Salvation increasingly became framed in terms of:
- legal guilt
- justification
- forensic declaration
The focus shifted toward legal standing before God, irrespective of the Christian’s actual walk. This is the fruit of a bad tree, not a good tree.
4. Why This Matters
When salvation is framed primarily as legal justification, a tension unfortunately appears. People begin asking: “If salvation is a legal declaration, what role does obedience play?”
It is like marriage in many ways. Marriage is a legal arrangement. And what role does fidelity play in the marriage contract? Faithfulness is understood as a condition of the marriage contract, and adultery or disobedience severs the legal contract. Is salvation any different? Didn’t God divorce Israel for its unfaithfulness and adultery?
That question eventually produced debates like:
- Lordship salvation
- Free grace theology
- “Carnal Christian” theories
These debates were much less prominent in the early Church because salvation was primarily viewed as a transformed life in Christ. Salvation was also understood to be conditional. And faithfulness was a condition of salvation.
5. How This Relates to 2 Peter 2 and Jude
The false teachers condemned in those passages were likely saying something like: “Grace frees you from moral obligation.”
The apostles rejected that idea strongly. And the early Church followed the same reasoning: Grace does not merely forgive sin. Grace destroys sin’s dominion and meets the condition of salvation.
And this is the problem in much of evangelicalism these days: grace is about the forgiveness of sin, even when the sin continues. That is not the gospel. It is a damnable heresy.
6. A Striking Observation
When you read:
- the Apostolic Fathers
- the early apologists
- the pre-Nicene theologians
You rarely, if ever, find the idea that a person could:
- believe in Christ
- yet continue to live in open rebellion and sin
Most Christians today believe that they will live in sin for the rest of their lives. This is exactly what 1 John repeatedly argues against.
The no-Lordship doctrine teaches that obedience plays no part in salvation, or is not a condition of it. It is a horribly destructive and false doctrine believed by many professing Christians today.
Next, we will examine the connection between 1 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7 (“many will say to me, Lord, Lord”).
Read together, these passages form one of the clearest New Testament warnings about false assurance and false teachers. And interestingly, the early Church frequently interpreted them together. The early Church often interpreted these passages together because they reinforce one another.
1. The Warning of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23
First, the foundational teaching comes from the Gospel of Matthew: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven…Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (KJV)
The keyword here is iniquity (Greek anomia), meaning lawlessness. Jesus describes people who:
- call Him “Lord.”
- perform religious acts
- yet practice lawlessness; they continue to sin, for sin is lawlessness
This same pattern appears in the other passages.
2. The Apostolic Warning in 2 Peter 2
In the Second Epistle of Peter, the apostle describes false teachers inside the church. They:
- secretly introduce destructive teachings
- exploit believers
- live immoral lives
- encourage others to do the same
A key verse says: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption.” (2 Peter 2:19)
The message of these teachers was essentially: “You are free — moral restraint is unnecessary because you are eternally secure no matter how much sin you persist in.”
That is precisely the danger Jesus warned about.
3. The Parallel Warning in Jude
The Epistle of Jude gives perhaps the clearest summary:
“Certain men crept in unawares… turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4)
Notice two things happening simultaneously:
- Grace is distorted into moral license; we can continue in sin and still go to heaven
- Christ’s lordship is effectively denied
Both of which are taught and believed by most evangelicals today. Is that not true?
Jude then uses strong examples:
- fallen angels
- Sodom and Gomorrah
- Balaam
All of them illustrate rebellion against God’s authority resulting in judgment.
4. The Test of Authentic Faith in 1 John
The apostle John addresses the same issue in 1 John. He repeatedly gives tests for genuine faith. For example: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar.” 1 John 2:4 (KJV). And: “He that committeth sin is of the devil.” 1 John 3:8.
John is not talking about occasional sin which is quickly repented of, but the ongoing repetition of sin. Repetition of sin is continued unrepentance. For John, the evidence of new birth is a changed life. The old man dies in repentance from sin, and the new man of righteousness lives. The bad tree is uprooted, and the new good tree produces the fruit of righteousness.
5. When You Put These Four Passages Together
A very clear pattern emerges in the chart that follows.
| Passage | Core Warning |
| Matthew 7 | People profess Christ but practice lawlessness |
| 2 Peter 2 | False teachers promote moral corruption |
| Jude | Grace twisted into a license to sin |
| 1 John | True believers do not live in sin |
Together they form a unified message:
True saving faith always produces obedience. False teaching always produces lawlessness or disobedience. Think of the doctrines today within evangelical churches that teach errors that produce disobedience by telling us that we are expected to disobey God, more or less, the rest of our lives as a new creation in Christ. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
6. How the Early Church Connected These Passages
Early Christian teachers frequently emphasized this connection. For example:
Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius warned that those who profess Christ but live contrary to His teaching are deceiving themselves. If only the religious elite today would believe this message and those who follow.
Irenaeus of Lyons
Irenaeus wrote that heretics:
- claim to know God
- but live immoral lives
He directly connected this with the apostolic warnings about false teachers.
Tertullian
Tertullian famously said: “Christ did not call us to freedom to sin, but freedom from sin.”
Matthew 1:21 states that the angel of God announced that Mary would have a son and his name would be Jesus because he would save his people from, not in, their sins. It is very disheartening that today the gospel has devolved into salvation in the ongoing commission of sin, rather than from sin.
7. The Three Marks of False Teachers in the New Testament
When you compare these passages, the apostles repeatedly identify three characteristics.
1. They distort grace
Grace becomes an excuse for ongoing sin.
2. They minimize obedience
Christ may be acknowledged as Savior but not obeyed as Lord. This is the no-Lordship error, which is the title of this article.
3. Their teaching produces immoral living
False doctrine leads to moral corruption among professing Christians.
8. The Apostolic Balance
The apostles also carefully avoided the opposite error. They did not teach salvation by works. Instead, the New Testament consistently teaches that salvation is:
- by grace
- through faith
But true saving faith transforms the believer from a sinner to a saint, who walks in the light of holiness and sees sin as the rare exception in their lives, not the norm. Is that anywhere close to what you have been taught?
9. A Final Observation
One striking thing about the New Testament is that warnings about false teachers are extremely frequent. But for believers in Eternal Security, these warnings don’t exist because salvation is unconditional.
- Jesus warns about them.
- Peter warns about them.
- John warns about them.
- Jude warns about them.
- Paul warns about them.
This suggests the apostles believed the greatest danger to the Church would come from within, not outside. How blind most of us are to this.
The New Testament gives a very specific profile of false teachers—about 10 recurring characteristics that appear across the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and Jude. Together, those characteristics create a kind of diagnostic test for identifying dangerous teaching in the church today.
That is the content of part 3 of this message.
