January 2026.
The New Testament actually gives a remarkably consistent profile of false teachers. When you compare the warnings of Jesus and the apostles, especially in the Gospel of Matthew, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, the First Epistle of John, and Paul’s pastoral letters, you see the same traits appearing repeatedly.
Early Christian writers like Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian also emphasized these characteristics, believing the apostles had already provided the diagnostic signs. Below are ten recurring marks of false teachers provided by ChatGPT and edited by me.
1. They (false teachers) secretly introduce their teaching
The apostles repeatedly say false teaching enters quietly. “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.” 2 Peter 2:1
The danger is not obvious at first. The teaching is introduced gradually and often takes the form of reinterpreting words and doctrines. This immediately brings to mind the debate between Augustine and Pelagius. According to Dr. Ali Bonner, author of The Myth of Pelagianism. She contends that Augustine used this greatly inflated controversy to deliberately change Christian Orthodoxy. And how did he do that? He changed the definitions of Biblical words. I can’t think of a better example. Can Augustine be understood as practicing all ten, or nearly that many, of these indicators of a false teacher? You decide.
2. False teachers distort grace
This is perhaps the most direct description. “Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.” Jude 4. Grace becomes a license for ongoing sin rather than liberation from it. Isn’t Augustine guilty of this? And this applies not just to him but to so many today in the exact same way. Convincing Christians that it is normal for them to sin daily turns the grace of God into lasciviousness, does it not?
3. They deny Christ in practice
Even when they verbally affirm Him. “Denying the Lord that bought them.” 2 Peter 2:1. The denial is often practical rather than verbal. To advance his own agenda, Augustine needed to reinterpret much of what Jesus and the apostles taught. I wish this wasn’t true of many today.
It reminds me of the passage where Jesus says many will come to him in that day and say, “Lord, Lord, did we not do many great things in your name?” And Jesus responds, “Depart from Me, I do not know you, you who commit iniquity.”
4. Their lives are morally corrupt
The apostles consistently say the teachers themselves live in sin. “Having eyes full of adultery… that cannot cease from sin.” 2 Peter 2:14. Later in his life, Augustine introduced doctrines declaring that all Christians sin daily. Did Augustine do this in part because of his own life of repeated sin? Does it not make you wonder?
Their conduct eventually reveals their doctrine if it is false.
5. They promise freedom while enslaving people
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption.” 2 Peter 2:19.
False teachers claim to offer spiritual freedom, but their teaching leads to the bondage of ongoing sin. The angel said, when he announced the coming birth of Christ, that Jesus came to save his people from their sins, but Augustine eventually declared that Jesus came to save his people in their ongoing sinful ways. Many follow in Augustine’s footsteps.
6. False teachers exploit people for gain
Money and power appear frequently in the warnings. “Through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you.” 2 Peter 2:3. God knows how much of Augustine’s motivation, if any, centered on his lust for power and fame. This includes:
- financial exploitation
- manipulation
- building personal followings
7. False teachers flatter and manipulate
Jude describes this clearly. “Having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.” Jude 16.
They tell people what they want to hear. I have a hard time believing Augustine’s preaching was not music to the ears of the many false converts who entered the Christian church as the Roman Empire declined. See my articles, Merchandising the Gospel and Speak To Us Smooth Things.
8. False teachers reject spiritual authority
False teachers often resist correction. “Despise government… self-willed.” 2 Peter 2:10. They refuse accountability. From what I’ve read about Augustine’s treatment of Pelagius and his handling of the controversy, it seems clear that Augustine was unteachable.
See my article, Unteachable.
9. False teachers cause division in the church
Division frequently follows false doctrine. “These are they who separate themselves.” Jude 19. Their teaching creates factions. Augustine’s objective, according to Dr. Ali Bonner, was to change Christian Orthodoxy, and, by definition, that caused division in the church then and still does today.
10. False teachers lack the transforming work of the Spirit
The apostles ultimately say the deepest problem is spiritual. “Sensual, having not the Spirit.” Jude 19.
The issue is not merely wrong ideas but a spiritual condition. Why would Augustine want to change Christian Orthodoxy? Did the Spirit of God call him to that task? Where is the evidence for it? There is much evidence against it.
The Overall Pattern Regarding False Teachers
When you put these together, the New Testament picture looks like this: False teachers typically combine:
- distorted doctrine
- moral compromise
- self-interest
This is why the apostles warn so strongly. And this is why I can’t help but believe Augustine and his many false teachings are the foundation for what is wrong in Western Christianity today.
The Early Church’s Summary
Early Christian leaders before Augustine often summarized the issue simply. For example, Irenaeus of Lyons said the clearest sign of false teachers is that “their doctrine allows people to live contrary to Christ’s commandments”. Is this not exactly how the evangelical church thinks, believes, and lives today?
One Very Important Balance
The New Testament also warns believers not to become overly suspicious or harsh. Not every mistaken idea equals heresy. That is a good and necessary reminder. The early church usually reserved the term “heresy” for teachings that:
- Denied Christ’s identity
- Corrupted the gospel
- Encouraged immoral living
I try to remain teachable. I do not know everything about theology or church history. I want to give every Christian leader the benefit of the doubt, but some leaders make that extremely difficult, and Augustine is one of them. I do not have perfect knowledge or understanding. I have studied the Bible for many years and am still learning. I do not believe Augustine tried to or wanted to “deny Christ’s identity.” But I believe with all my heart that Augustine “corrupted the gospel” and “encouraged immoral living.” It’s hard for me to believe he did this unintentionally, but I am leaving that in God’s hands. God knows for sure.
A Very Interesting Final Observation
When Jesus warns about false teachers in Matthew 7, the test He gives is extremely simple: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16). Jesus did not say you shall know them by:
- their charisma
- their success
- their popularity
- their intellect and their degrees
- their great speaking ability
But their fruit, their doctrine, and the kind of life it produces. Almost all of evangelical teaching these days allows for and encourages sinful living in believers with the belief that their standing before God is sealed and eternally secure. This false assurance is given to those professing Christians whose actual state is ongoing sinfulness. False assurance by false teachers. It is all bad fruit.
Next, we will consider the history and development of the “carnal Christian.”
Many historians of theology point out that the idea of the “carnal Christian” (a permanently worldly believer) was almost unknown in the first 1,500 years of church history. Please also refer to my article titled “Carnal Christianity.”
Seeing where that idea came from historically sheds light on modern debates about Lordship salvation, assurance, and obedience.
This is a very real and important debate in historical theology. Scholars have been re-examining the conflict between Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius, and some modern historians argue that the traditional picture may be oversimplified or even wrong.
Let us lay out the issue carefully, because there are three different layers to it:
- What the historical Pelagius probably taught
- How Augustine interpreted and opposed him
- Why Eastern Christianity did not adopt Augustine’s theological framework
1. The Traditional Western Narrative regarding Pelagius
For most of Western Christian history, the story was told like this. Pelagius supposedly taught that:
- humans are born morally neutral
- humans can obey God without special grace
- original sin does not corrupt human nature
Augustine argued the opposite:
- humanity inherits original sin (Adam’s guilt and a sinful nature)
- humans cannot choose good without grace
- Salvation depends entirely on God’s grace; people contribute nothing to their own salvation
According to ChatGPT, Augustine was long viewed as the defender of orthodoxy, and Pelagius as a dangerous heretic. But let us not forget that for the first few centuries, the early church leaders rejected everything Augustine peddled in the 5th century.
Augustine’s view influenced:
- medieval Catholic theology
- the Protestant Reformation
- modern evangelical theology
2. What Modern Scholarship Has Reconsidered
Some historians now argue that Pelagius may have been misrepresented. I mentioned Dr. Ali Bonner, author of The Myth of Pelagianism. Her argument, in simplified form, is:
- Pelagius was actually part of a mainstream ascetic movement
- His goal was to encourage moral responsibility and holy living
- The label “Pelagianism” may have been constructed later by Augustine’s followers
According to Bonner, the controversy may have been less about a clear heresy and more about competing theological emphases. See also Dr. Kenneth Wilson’s book, The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism.
Many scholars agree on one thing: Pelagius’s actual writings are far more moderate than the extreme version of “Pelagianism” later condemned.
However, other historians disagree with Bonner and believe Pelagius still minimized the necessity of grace. The scholarly debate continues. But what is not credibly debated is that Augustine deviated from Christian Orthodoxy in his later years and was at odds with the rest of the early church fathers. The eastern branch of Christianity never adopted Augustine’s new orthodoxy. Please remember that.
3. Why the Eastern Church Never Fully Adopted Augustine
ChatGPT wrote, “Your observation about Eastern Christianity is very perceptive”. The theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church developed largely independent of Augustine’s framework.
Eastern theologians such as:
- Gregory of Nyssa
- Maximus the Confessor
- John of Damascus
They each emphasized a different model of salvation than Augustine’s. Their framework focused on healing and transformation rather than inherited guilt. This is often called Theosis.
Key differences include:
| Western Augustinian emphasis | Eastern emphasis |
| inherited guilt | inherited mortality |
| legal justification | healing and transformation |
| grace overcoming inability | cooperation with grace |
Eastern theologians generally believed that Augustine:
- overstated inherited guilt
- underemphasized human cooperation with grace
ChatGPT makes that sound like a minor disagreement, but it is not. It is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of salvation itself.
4. But the East Also Rejected Pelagianism
This part is important. Even though the Eastern churches did not fully adopt Augustine’s theology, they also rejected Pelagian ideas that denied the necessity of grace.
The East historically held a middle position according to ChatGPT:
- rejecting Pelagian self-sufficiency, which was characterized by them and maybe not so much by Pelagian himself.
- rejecting Augustine’s strongest formulations of original sin
5. Was Augustine “Changing Christian Orthodoxy”?
Historians usually frame this more cautiously. Augustine did not intentionally try to corrupt Christianity. Rather:
- he developed theology during intense controversies that he himself may have exaggerated
- his writings were enormously influential in the West
- later generations systematized his ideas much more strongly than he did
In that sense, Augustine became the architect of Western theological categories, even though earlier Christianity sometimes expressed ideas in ways that were very different and more faithful to the Word of God.
Left off here.
6. Why This Matters
Questions about:
- grace and obedience
- lawlessness in the church
- The interpretation of 1 John
All of these connect to this historical shift. When salvation is framed primarily in legal categories, Christians begin debating questions like:
- Can someone be justified yet live carnally?
- What role does obedience play in assurance?
As mentioned earlier, those questions rarely appear in the earliest Christian writings because salvation was described more as conditional participation in new life, and faith and obedience were assumed to be inseparable.
7. A Balanced Historical Conclusion
Most historians today would say:
- Augustine was one of the greatest theologians in Christian history.
- But his theological system was not identical to earlier Christian thought.
- And the Eastern and Western traditions developed different emphases after him.
And all that seems harmless enough, as ChatGPT describes it. ChatGPT tells me, “Your instinct that Augustine marks an important turning point in Western theology is widely recognized among historians”.
But I think Augustine corrupted the gospel, as does its child, Calvinism. No doubt Augustine was extremely influential, but the question is, did Augustine promote the truth of the Word of God and the gospel, or materially corrupt it? I am convinced he corrupted it. From just my own study of the Bible, I came to this conclusion without knowing much about Christian theological history. The history of the early church and theology has strengthened my conviction that Augustine made heresy Orthodox within Christianity.
What about Carnal Christianity?
The idea of a “carnal Christian” who remains worldly for life largely appeared in 19th-century revivalist theology and later dispensationalism, especially through the influence of Lewis Sperry Chafer. See my article, Carnal Christianity.
Tracing that development explains why debates about Lordship salvation vs. free grace exist in modern evangelicalism but were almost nonexistent in the early church. And that should tell us a great deal about how the Christian Church has lost its moral leadership in our culture. That historical trail is surprisingly illuminating. We will do this in five stages.
1. The New Testament Background
The phrase “carnal Christian” comes from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul tells the Corinthians:
“I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 3:1 KJV)
Paul describes believers behaving immaturely, even sinfully. However, two things are important:
- Paul treats carnality as temporary immaturity, not necessarily a permanent state.
- He rebukes them strongly and calls them to change.
According to ChatGPT, Paul never suggests a Christian might remain permanently carnal for life as a normal category. And in chapter 6 of 1 Corinthians, Paul categorically warns these carnal professing Christians that if they are unrighteous, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul lists many sinful behaviors that disqualify carnal believers from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Paul says Such were some of you, but you are no longer carnal.
In my opinion, very few Christians today believe a word of it.
2. The Early Church Understanding
The early Christian writers interpreted the passage similarly. Writers such as:
- Irenaeus of Lyons
- John Chrysostom
Both believed Paul was speaking about spiritual immaturity, not a permanent sinful condition. For them, the Christian life involved growth and transformation. They would have found the idea of a permanently worldly Christian very troubling and would have rejected it.
3. The Augustinian Turn
When Augustine of Hippo developed his theology of grace and sin, the emphasis shifted toward human inability and divine grace. However, Augustine still believed that grace produced transformation, even though he held that Christians would sin daily. How much sense does that make? And many consider him one of the greatest theologians of all time. No wonder we are in darkness today.
ChatGPT says Augustine did not teach that someone could live permanently in rebellion while remaining spiritually healthy. But he did teach that Christians sin daily, which is an obvious and direct contradiction.
So, the “carnal Christian” concept still did not exist in the later evangelical sense we know about today, according to ChatGPT. In my opinion, that’s a distinction without a difference.
4. The Reformation Emphasis
During the Protestant Reformation, theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith. They stressed that salvation is a gift of grace, not earned by works. However, they also insisted that genuine faith produces sanctification. Even so, he believed Christians sin daily. This is nothing but theological sophistry.
Calvin famously said: “Christ justifies no one whom he does not also sanctify.” Even so, he believed Christians sin daily. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it is a duck, not a goat and not a fish.
So again, the concept of a lifelong worldly believer did not become a normal category, according to ChatGPT. But it actually did establish the foundation for carnal Christianity and the normalization of it as a category.
5. The 19th-Century Shift
The idea of a stable category of “carnal Christians” became clearer in the revivalist and holiness movements of the 19th century.
Preachers such as:
- Charles Finney
- D. L. Moody
were dealing with a pastoral problem: Large numbers of people professed faith during revivals but did not live changed lives.
Different explanations arose. Some said the conversions were false. Others said these people were true believers who had not yet experienced deeper surrender. Finney might have added that some were backslidden believers. This set the stage for a new theological framework.
6. Chafer’s Three-Category Model
In the early 20th century, Lewis Sperry Chafer systematized a three-category model of humanity. He taught that people fall into three groups:
- Natural man – unbeliever
- Spiritual man – mature Christian (who lives in daily sin?)
- Carnal man – saved but living under the control of the flesh (still living in daily sin. So how is that any different from the natural man and the Spiritual man?)
This framework became extremely influential in dispensational theology. It later spread widely through:
- Dallas Theological Seminary
- Campus ministries like Campus Crusade for Christ
A famous booklet called Have You Made the Wonderful Discovery of the Spirit-Filled Life? popularized this idea worldwide.
7. Why the Debate Exploded in the Late 20th Century
By the 1980s and 1990s, evangelical theologians were debating whether this model was biblical. Critics argued it allowed people to claim salvation while living unchanged lives. The debate became well known through the controversy between:
- John MacArthur
- Charles C. Ryrie
- Zane Hodges
MacArthur argued the New Testament does not recognize a permanent category of carnal Christians. Ryrie and Hodges argued that salvation should not be tied too closely to visible obedience. This became the Lordship Salvation controversy.
8. What Is Historically Interesting
When historians step back, they notice something striking. The earliest Christian writings emphasize:
- repentance
- obedience
- transformation
The concept of a lifelong worldly believer becomes prominent much later in church history. In other words, the early church before Augustine did not recognize a category of carnal Christians. To the early church, they were not true Christians.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the later theologians were insincere or malicious. Nor does it mean that what they did improved anything, according to ChatGPT. I believe they made things much worse and openly contradicted the truth of God’s Word.
Often, they were trying to solve pastoral problems created by mass evangelism by introducing false doctrine, sometimes unintentionally, we hope.
But historically, it is a relatively new theological category, according to ChatGPT. What does that mean? Could it mean that it was a false teaching? And this new teaching allowed for sin to flood the pews of our churches and destroy many professing Christians here and in the hereafter. It normalizes sinful living to a far greater extent, and it flatly contradicts most of the Bible.
Final Comments
Let us end this study as we began it. Peter warned about false teachers in the Church of Christ who taught damnable heresies. The early church fathers told us that those false teachings centered around five areas of the Christian faith.
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
For example, Irenaeus explicitly says certain Gnostics taught that personal behavior or 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. Christians are told that they may lose rewards or position in heaven, but they can never lose salvation, which is an antinomian distortion of grace.
The early church Fathers strongly condemned teachings that justified ongoing sin. And that is exactly what Calvinism and most of evangelicalism teach and believe today. 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 fathers frequently cited 2 Peter 2 and Jude 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.
The no-Lordship doctrine and the belief in Carnal Christianity are two well-known heresies today, yet most call them orthodox Christianity. Other doctrines that might be included among the damnable heresies include Christ’s imputed righteousness, Christ’s imputed obedience, and eternal security. All of these are antinomian distortions of God’s grace, along with all five points of Calvinism.
My, how far have we fallen.
