Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six Part Seven Part Eight Part Nine Part Ten Part Eleven Part Twelve
The Fruit and Consequences of Belief Change
Belief change produces consequences. When someone changes what he believes, the change does not necessarily remain confined to one doctrine or practice. It can affect his understanding of other Scriptures, his worship, his conduct, his relationships, and the direction of his life. A change may correct error and lead to greater obedience to God. It may also introduce error that eventually produces disobedience, confusion, and departure from the truth.
In Part Eleven, I wrote about bringing proposed changes into the light for examination and accountability. Part Twelve explained why we should rely on the whole counsel of God to test a proposed or possible change. Now it is important to consider the consequences of belief change. Scripture gives examples of changes and errors that affect more than one area of Christian belief and practice. These examples show why Christians must examine not only what a change claims to accomplish, but also what it means, where it comes from, and what follows from it.
Philosophy and the Danger of Changing from the Wrong Source
Colossians 2:8
Paul warns the Colossians about a source of belief change that does not begin with God’s revelation. Colossians 2:8 says:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Paul’s warning is direct. A person can be spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit. The word “spoil” relates to taking someone captive. Instead of bringing people into a fuller understanding of Christ, a false system of thought can capture their minds and lead them away from Him.
Paul identifies the sources of this danger. He mentions philosophy, vain deceit, the tradition of men, and the rudiments of the world. It is not that Christians should avoid all careful thought or that every use of the word philosophy is necessarily evil. His concern is teaching that captivates people through human reasoning and tradition rather than according to Christ. A system may sound sophisticated, appear persuasive, or enjoy widespread acceptance and still lead people away from the truth.
Not After Christ
The contrast at the end of the verse is decisive: “and not after Christ.” Christ is not merely one influence among many that can shape Christian belief. Truth about Christ should govern what Christians should believe. A believer should evaluate a proposed change by whether it agrees with Christ as He is revealed in Scripture, not by whether it fits a popular intellectual system or a prevailing cultural expectation. Something after Christ won’t contradict something after the Words of Scripture He inspired.
This warning applies especially to someone who changes because he wants Christianity to appear more reasonable or acceptable to his contemporaries. He could adopt the world’s conventional wisdom and then reinterpret Scripture to accommodate it. He might elevate human traditions above Scripture or treat worldly expectations as worthy for judging Christian teaching. The result can be a change that appears to improve Christianity while actually subordinating it to something outside the authority of God’s Word.
Colossians 2:20-23
Paul continues in Colossians 2:20–23 to address human commandments and doctrines that, although they seem wise, lack the power they claim to have. He warns against submitting to ordinances that are “after the commandments and doctrines of men.” Such practices may have “a shew of wisdom” in their will worship, humility, and neglecting of the body, yet they cannot accomplish what their appearance suggests.
Not every old practice is wrong nor is every new practice worldly. The question is whether a belief or practice comes from Christ’s authority or from human standards that displace His Word. Humanly devised religion can look serious, disciplined, and spiritual. Its appearance does not establish that it is biblical. This also shows why the source of a proposed change matters. Someone may begin with the desire to attract more people, avoid offense, gain intellectual respectability, or conform to accepted practice. Those desires can then determine how he interprets Scripture. Instead of allowing God’s Word to correct his thinking, he uses his thinking to reshape God’s Word.
The right process runs in the opposite direction. A Christian places his beliefs under Christ’s authority. He examines human traditions, philosophical assumptions, and cultural pressures in the light of Scripture. A true believer does not assume that a teaching is true because it is old, new, popular, sophisticated, or effective. He seeks to subordinate it to Christ.
The Corinthian Error: Denying the Bodily Resurrection
Change in Corinth
A second example shows how changing one doctrine can undermine other truths and alter the practical implications of the Christian faith. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul confronts the denial of bodily resurrection. He begins in 1 Corinthians 15:12:
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
Paul does not treat this disagreement as an insignificant difference of opinion. The resurrection of the dead connects to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the truth of apostolic preaching, the forgiveness of sins, and the believer’s future hope. Paul demonstrates how much is at stake when someone denies the bodily resurrection.
Consequences of the Change
In verses 13–17, he reasons that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not risen. If Christ has not risen, preaching is vain, faith is vain, the apostles are false witnesses, and believers remain in their sins. Paul writes in verse 17:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
When someone denies the resurrection of the dead, it has immense bearing on the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection. This error also had practical consequences for the Corinthians. In verse 32, Paul asks what advantage there would be if the dead do not rise, and then warns against the conclusion, “let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” In verse 33, he says:
Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
Paul connects false thinking with the danger of corrupt conduct. Denying bodily resurrection also denies the future hope that motivates Christian perseverance. The error affects how people understand their present lives.
Examining Implications
Not every person who misunderstands a doctrine will immediately follow every consequence of that misunderstanding. People can hold inconsistent beliefs, and they may reject the implications of their own positions. Paul, however, shows why Christians must trace those implications rather than ignore them.
The resurrection example also shows why someone cannot measure the consequences only by immediate results. Denying bodily resurrection might seem to resolve someone’s intellectual difficulty, but that apparent advantage cannot make the denial true. Doctrinal truth does not depend on how easy it is for people to accept. God’s revelation establishes what Christians must believe.
Peter at Antioch: When Conduct Contradicts the Gospel
Galatians 2:11-14
In Galatians 2, Paul confronts Peter’s conduct toward Gentile believers. Peter’s behavior communicates a theological message even if it appears to concern only eating with other Christians. Paul describes the confrontation in Galatians 2:11–12:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Peter had been eating with Gentile believers. When certain men arrived, however, he withdrew and separated himself because he feared those associated with the circumcision. His conduct changed under pressure from other people. Paul explains the consequences in verses 13–14:
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Notice how Paul describes the problem. He says Peter and the others “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Their conduct was not merely an unfortunate social decision. Their withdrawal meant not treating Gentile believers as full participants unless they adopted Jewish practices. The context exposes its doctrinal significance.
Galatians 2:16
Paul had already defended the truth that justification is not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. He states in Galatians 2:16:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Peter’s conduct contradicted the gospel truth Paul was defending. By withdrawing from Gentile believers under pressure, Peter acted as though fellowship with them depended on a distinction that the gospel did not require. His actions implied that Gentiles needed to live as Jews to enjoy full acceptance among Jewish believers. Peter did not have to announce a new doctrinal statement for his conduct to communicate a doctrinal position. His behavior made a practical claim. That claim contradicted the truth of the gospel.
Conduct Change Effecting Doctrinal Change
This is an especially important example for the process of belief change. A person may continue to profess a biblical doctrine while changing his conduct in a way that undermines it. His words and actions may no longer agree. A church may affirm the sufficiency of Scripture while adopting practices shaped by worldly expectations. It may profess the truth of the gospel while treating people in ways that imply that human customs or achievements are necessary for acceptance with God. In such cases, the practical change deserves the same serious examination as a change in a written confession.
Peter’s conduct also demonstrates how fear can influence change. Peter withdrew because he feared ‘those of the circumcision.’ The pressure of other people led him to act inconsistently with the truth he knew. The other Jewish believers followed his example, and even Barnabas was carried away. One person’s change in behavior influenced others and spread the error. Leaders especially must consider the effects of their decisions. Their conduct teaches. People may follow what leaders do even when those actions contradict what they say. A leader’s practical decisions can normalize a belief that he would reject if someone stated it explicitly.
Not Ignoring the Wrong Change
Paul did not overlook the problem to preserve Peter’s reputation or maintain outward unity. He confronted Peter because the truth of the gospel was at stake. His example demonstrates that genuine unity cannot be maintained by ignoring conduct that contradicts the truth. Scripture requires correction.
This passage also cautions against treating practical changes as mere personal preference. In Antioch, it went beyond the social implications of who someone ate with. The question was whether Gentile believers had to adopt Jewish practices to be accepted as full participants in the church. Peter’s withdrawal gave the wrong answer.
Not every difference denies the gospel. Some do, however, so Christians must examine what a practice communicates in its actual setting. If a practice implies something that contradicts biblical doctrine, true churches must address the implication rather than dismiss it as external or insignificant.
False Teaching and the Destruction of Faith
Paul gives another example in 2 Timothy 2:16–18. He warns Timothy against profane and vain babblings because they increase ungodliness. This is another example of a wrong kind of change. Paul then names Hymenaeus and Philetus, ‘who had erred concerning the truth’ by saying that the resurrection was past already. Paul says their teaching “overthrew the faith of some.”
Again, doctrinal error did not remain harmless or isolated. Their teaching affected the faith of people who received it. Paul does not suggest that false teaching becomes acceptable when its advocates are sincere or persuasive. He identifies the error and warns of its consequences.
This example reinforces the need to evaluate both a change’s content and its effects. A teacher may claim to offer a better understanding, but Christians must examine whether that understanding agrees with Scripture. They must also consider whether it undermines essential truth or misleads others.
The consequences of error do not replace the biblical test. They confirm the seriousness of applying that test. Christians should not wait until a change has damaged faith or practice before asking whether it is true.
Good Fruit Is Not the Same as Popular Success
Matthew 7:15-20
In Matthew 7:15–20 Jesus teaches that false prophets are known by their fruits. The immediate context concerns false teachers who appear harmless but are inwardly dangerous. Jesus does not instruct His hearers to judge a message by its popularity, numerical success, or immediate usefulness. He warns them to look at what his life and teaching produce.
A person must apply this principle carefully. A doctrine is not true merely because its advocates appear kind or successful, or false merely because one of its advocates behaves badly. Scripture remains the standard for determining truth. Yet a teacher’s conduct and the effects of his teaching can reveal serious contradictions that require attention.
James 3:17
James 3:17 describes wisdom from above as “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” The order matters. Peace does not come before purity. Avoiding conflict does not justify compromise of the truth. Biblical wisdom seeks peace in a way that remains pure.
Therefore, when someone proposes a change to avoid disagreement, attract people, or improve a ministry’s public reputation, Christians must ask whether the change is actually biblical. Greater attendance, financial support, public approval, or temporary peace does not establish God’s approval. Those outcomes may accompany a right decision, but they may also accompany a wrong one.
The reverse is also true. A faithful change may bring opposition, loss, or difficulty. Correcting error can expose previously concealed disagreements. Returning to biblical practice may require sacrifice. Those difficulties do not establish that the correction was wrong. Scripture, not immediate results, determines the right course.
The Right Response When the Fruit Reveals Error
When examination shows that a change contradicts Scripture, the proper response is correction. Revelation 2:4–5 provide an example in Christ’s message to the church at Ephesus. Christ commended the church for several things, but He also said:
Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
The church’s commendable qualities did not excuse its departure. Christ called for recognition, repentance, and correction. Its past faithfulness didn’t excuse ignoring what was wrong.
The same principle applies to belief change. A person should not defend an unscriptural position merely because he has already adopted it. A church should not preserve an unscriptural practice merely because it has invested time, money, reputation, or institutional authority in it. Previous decisions do not become right because reversing them would be embarrassing.
Sometimes the right change is to abandon a new position and return to what Scripture teaches. At other times, the right change is to abandon a long-established belief that Scripture exposes as wrong. The direction of the change may differ, but the authority remains the same: God’s Word.
The Lesson
The lesson here is not that consequences alone determine whether a change is right. Scripture’s doctrines and commands have implications that Christians must take seriously. We must examine where a belief comes from, whether it agrees with the whole counsel of God, what it implies about other doctrines, and whether the resulting conduct agrees with biblical truth.
The right process does not begin with a desired result and then seek biblical permission for it. It begins with God’s Word, allows Scripture to correct established beliefs and practices, and follows through in obedience. A change is not right because it is popular, practical, or convenient. It is right when it conforms to God’s revealed truth.