When I was just starting out in Christian pastoral ministry (long ago) I was drawn to the writings of Paul for preaching material. It read more like theology to me — it seemed more about ideas and morality — and seemed a better fit for the needs of a three-point sermon outline. I could simply draw from Paul’s writings my point #1, point #2 and so forth. All my points were Biblical (from my perspective at the time) since they each had a verse or a phrase from one of Paul’s letters attached to them.
What I was missing was that all these assertions Paul makes, all the apparently abstract theology and moralizing, was, in truth, reflection on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus — working out its implications for first century believers. The Epistles must take us back to the Gospels — or else, we are just not getting it. The Gospel message we need to communicate is the story of Jesus.
On the basis of [the] function of Jesus’ message [as the criterion of God’s judgment] and the New Testament emphasis on the all-encompassing love of God (e.g., Matt. 8:11; John 10:16), Pannenberg asserts that correspondence with the will of God as reflected in Jesus’ proclamation — that is, the command to seek first God’s kingdom and the double command to love — rather than an actual encounter with the Christian message, is the basis of final judgment (Matt. 25:41ff.).
The step in this direction is prepared by a thesis, developed in the Christology and ecclesiology sections, that love for others entails participation in God’s love for the world. This understanding of the criterion for judgment means that persons who live in accordance with Jesus’ message will be included in the divine salvation, whereas nominal Christians may find themselves excluded. To the resultant question, If an encounter with Jesus is not the sole condition for salvation, what is the Christian’s advantage? he replies that Christians have the advantage in that they know what the standard of judgment is. Although he emphasizes the universality of the possibility of salvation in this manner and even moves the concept of eternal condemnation to that of a border situation, Pannenberg is unwilling to embrace universalism.
This resonates very well with the sense I remember getting from my initial reading of Volume 3 of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology.
There is so much here to like. This fits very well with the Wesleyan themes that: (1.) “without holiness no one will see the Lord” and that, in turn, (2.) the essence of this holiness is love to God and love for other people. It sets this theology apart from the common variety of evangelicalism which posits salvation either by creed or by a particular religious experience. Faith in Christ is the doorway into holy living. A faith that makes no difference in a person’s life is a dead faith — or, as Wesley would point out the faith of the devil and the demons! This is not saving faith. Faith brings a person’s life into ever-growing continuity with the will of God revealed in Christ.
The proclamation of Jesus was
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (Mark 1:15 NRSV).
This also was the proclamation entrusted to Jesus’ disciples. It is a message which is moral to the core — it calls for a change in attitude and a change in life. It calls us to align ourselves with God’s purposes — for our lives and for our world. We turn. We leave the past behind. We begin anew. We seek God’s will and God’s Reign — however imperfectly we may understand, and however imperfectly we may see it realized. It is a call to change our ways.
We do not have the right to turn it into something else. How can it become merely “change your worldview” or “put a check-mark in this box” — when the call is to repent, and to believe and become a part of the redemptive work of God in the world?
Nevertheless, this understanding of the Last Judgment also calls us to look beyond the church itself — to God’s will and purpose for all the human race. Thus, it resonates well with the New Testament’s inclusive vision.
“For [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” (Romans 2:6-16 NRSV)
The God proclaimed by Jesus is not a parochial God whose concern is only for a small club or group. God’s purposes have to do with all humanity — and God’s Spirit has been sent upon all flesh. We know there is salvation and new life in the name of Jesus. All who know Christ then proclaim this — and what faith in Christ’s name will mean in the conduct of their lives. But, God’s purposes are greater than we know. And, God’s purposes in Christ are expansive. “… in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself….” (2 Corinthians 5:19 NRSV). “Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.’” (Acts 10:34, 35 NRSV.)
The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of his death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of his death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer his grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy.
— John Wesley, “A Letter to a Person Lately Joined with the People Called Quakers”
So, this is another reason I like the way this is formulated: it expresses an appropriate hope for all people. This is what I keep calling “Hopeful Inclusivism.” It is not necessarily a doctrine of universal salvation, but it is a hopeful doctrine of universal grace.
And, it reminds us that that religion per se is not that hope. All people are called to hear and heed the message of Christ — and that includes religious people. The name of Christ is no shield from repentance and faith. The name of Christ does not relax the urgency of God’s call to new life, to discipleship and service. Christ is our way into the life God calls us to live. I don’t think there is anything so obnoxious to God as false, unrepentant, religion.
And, yet, while affirming a universalistic hope, this did not push Pannenberg to complete universalism. It is true that in Christ there is hope for all. It is true that in Christ we know that God is loving and just — and thus, will deal with all people with justice and fairness. But Pannenberg still leaves room for the possibility of eternal damnation as, as Grenz says, “a border situation.”
In fact that’s one of the things that surprised me when I first read the last part of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology. As I read along I thought sure we were about to arrive at universalism — maybe on the next page. But, no! Surely, we can hope for the salvation of all. We would wish for it. But, Pannenberg still felt that there are some who will resist God and God’s will and purpose — however expansively defined — even to the very end.
Certainly David Bentley Hart has made a strong case — formally irrefutable, really — for an ultimate universalism in his book That All Shall Be Saved (2019). I’m not sure what Pannenberg would have said to that. II feel no one should resist the idea. Ultimate salvation is a hope consistent with the character of the God we know through Jesus Christ. Yet, there is much about eternity, the nature of the human consciousness and will, etc. that we do not understand. We do not dare undermine the warnings of proximate moral judgement in the light of ultimate salvation, anyway. The reality of Judgement is clear.
So, as I say, there is much to like (at least from from my admittedly idiosyncratic point of view) in this perspective on the Last Judgement. But, I do have some disagreements, as well. This (again, quoting from Grenz) seems terribly inadequate to me:
To the resultant question, If an encounter with Jesus is not the sole condition for salvation, what is the Christian’s advantage? he replies that Christians have the advantage in that they know what the standard of judgement is.
There is salvation and life in the name of Christ. There is the growing experiential knowledge of God’s will — discovered through Scripture and prayer and service and worship and interaction with others. Through faith in Christ these things become Means of Grace to lift us higher into the life of faith. Through them The Holy Spirit works in our inner lives to bring us into conformity to Christ.
But, God’s will for the human race is that we come to reflect God’s character. “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And, this is what God is seeking from beginning to end.
“He will send from heaven and save me, he will put to shame those who trample on me. Selah. God will send forth his steadfast love and his faithfulness.” Psalm 57:3 (Hebrew: verse 4) (NRSV)
My first reading of this is: “God will send help from far away.” And, there is some basis for this reading. But, that’s not the whole story.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” — John 3:16 (NRSV).
JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS (my responses have a white background):
John Calvin (1509-1564)
“’That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.’ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”
Um. Okay. I think I’m with you there, brother John.
“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”
Whoa! What do you mean “on the other hand”? Umm… Now you seem to be dodging out of it all by appealing to a theology that is rooted in something else, John. Here you are clearly leaving exegesis behind and trying to reconcile the verse with a preconceived theology. How can ‘life’ be promised to those incapable of receiving it? It can’t. How can God ‘invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers’ (as you say) if God is choosing to withhold the ability to believe from some? You can’t have it both ways. I mean, I know you’re a logical guy, John. Isn’t it possible that Augustine was wrong in the Enchiridion — where this same logical inconsistency can be found?
“Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.”
What! Now you seem to be having problems with your earlier statement that [faith] ‘frees us from everlasting destruction.’ Do you mean: ‘faith bestows life upon us’ (as you said earlier) or: ‘life’ (through grace) bestows faith upon us? Now you are saying that redemption precedes salvation, because the ability to believe is itself the result of that salvation. If the ability to believe is wholly the decision of God, then it is God who has determined the issues of life and death. It is your theology that has dictated that: “redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation” — not the text itself. I agree that part of the message of this verse is ‘that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves’ but it is also a universal offer of eternal life (thus, it says: “whoever”) — a possibility your theology does not seem to allow for! In my opinion, making sense of this verse requires a concept of Prevenient Grace, which allows fallen humans to respond with faith to the offer of life. Otherwise, from your point of view, the verse should read either:
“For God so loved the elect that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who belongs to the elect and, thus, has faith, may therefore believe in him unto eternal life.”
or more simply:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has eternal life may believe in him.”
But, surely you see, don’t you, it doesn’t say either of those things. You’ve turned it around backwards. This is no longer the Scripture with which you began.
(Start gathering the wood again, boys, I think there’s another heretic in town.)
QUESTION: Where is the Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church taught in the Bible.
ANSWER: It is not taught in the Bible. It is the implication of a theory of interpretation of the Bible known as Dispensationalism.
I’m old enough to remember the Larry Norman song “I Wish We’d All Been Ready” (used extensively in evangelism). It was part of a a fear-evangelism tactic used to scare people (especially young people) into accepting Jesus as Savior before it was too late. Here are some of the lyrics:
A man and wife asleep in bed She hears a noise and turns her head he’s gone I wish wed all been ready Two men walking up a hill One disappears and ones left standing still I wish wed all been ready
[Chorus] There’s no time to change your mind The son has come and you’ve been left behind
Many years after all that, I also remember the brief furor that was caused by a booklet that gave 88 reasons why Jesus was returning in 1988. Then after that, Harold Camping predicted Jesus’ return on May 21, 2011. Over the years, many of the predictions of end-times prophecy teachers have failed — some quite spectacularly — but, this is quickly forgotten when a new round of predictions starts up again.
The doctrine of the Rapture has been a staple of American fear-evangelism for a long time. In this teaching, Jesus will return secretly to remove all true Christian believers from the world — then a time of horrible Tribulation will ensue. And, it is still commonly taught by certain well-known “prophetic” teachers.
Evangelical and conservative Christians pride themselves on their devotion to the Bible. Yet, there are certain common features of conservative Christian teaching about the return of Christ which have little or no backing from the Scriptures. Specifically, the teaching that Christ will come silently and secretly to take believers out of the world, seven years before he returns in glory, is a teaching the lacks Biblical support.
In a church that I pastored years ago, one of the church leaders expressed surprise when I gave sermons based on Old Testament texts. He had pretty much written off the Old Testament — at least, from what he knew of it — and I hadn’t. In fact, I enjoy preaching from an Old Testament story or text. I’m pretty open that I do not expound on the Old Testament the way a Jewish rabbi would. Yes, I try to understand the Old Testament in its historical context. But, for me that is just a beginning point. I also want to understand it (for the purposes of Christian preaching) in light of what God has revealed to us in Christ.
The resurrection effectively reversed the charges against Jesus and confirmed his mission. We thus see that if he had saved his life at the cost of his proclaiming the divine lordship, he would have actually made himself independent of God and put himself in equality with him. ‘Whoever would save his life will lose it’ (Mark 8:35 par.). This was true of Jesus himself. He could not be the Son of God by an unlimited duration of his finite existence. No finite being can be one with God in infinite reality. Only as he let his creaturely existence be consumed in service to his mission could Jesus as a creature be one with God. As he did not cling to his life but chose to accept the ambivalence that his mission meant for his person, with all its consequences, he showed himself, from the standpoint of he Easter event, to be obedient to his mission (Rom. 5:19, Heb. 5:8). This obedience led him into the situation of extreme separation from God and His immortality, into the dereliction of the cross. The remoteness from God on the cross was the climax of his self-distinction from the Father. Rightly then, we may say that the crucifixion was integral to his earthly existence.
The cross gives meaning to the resurrection, the resurrection gives meaning to the cross. Each is incomplete without the other.
When we say Jesus was one with God we say this on the basis that Jesus fulfilled his whole mission — including death and resurrection. It is in this sense alone that Jesus was truly both fully human and fully God. Without the Cross we cannot make such a claim about Jesus. The Cross is integral to the message. “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him….” (Heb 5:8,9 NRSV)
I think this fact reminds us that preaching the Gospel has to emphasize actually telling the story of Jesus more than teaching ideas derived from the story. It is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that constitutes the Gospel. If part of it is left out, other parts lose their true significance as well. The theological claims that Christians make can only be asserted on the basis of the whole story.
So, the preacher needs to ask: am I telling the whole story or just parts of it? Or: am I just giving advice, teaching some ideas, venting my frustrations, and never telling the story at all?
Moral advice, good ideas, criticism of the world’s ideas and trends, political programs — all these things do not amount to the Gospel of Christ. We need to ever learn anew what it means to “tell the old, old story” to our current generation.
It s wrong to suppose that people are too shallow and self-absorbed to hear it. Someone is always out there to complain that people today are too vacuous, ignorant, or unspiritual. Yes, people are exploring sexuality and gender in ways previous generations did not. Yes, there is sexual promiscuity. There are trends that have arisen in the realm of technology and the internet that are troubling.
It doesn’t mean people are stupid or have lost the spiritual hunger for meaning and connection that is naturally constitutive of human nature. Sexual promiscuity and high intelligence often go together. Sexual searching and spiritual searching are not totally unrelated — one can substitute for the other.
Yes, some young people are not satisfied with traditional answers. But, they are asking questions. And some may want serious and well-considered answers. Prevenient grace means that God’s Spirit is striving with even the most apparently unlikely people.
Let’s learn to tell the story of Jesus in ways that are engaging, fresh, and faithful.
Yesterday I introduced this prayer from the apostle Paul and gave some some personal reflections. There was a time when I don’t think I could have talked about the ongoing stages of the Christian journey without reference to the power of the Holy Spirit. And, that would be the way I would still speak of it today. But, in Colossians Paul uses terminology that is more focused on Christ than on the Holy Spirit.
So, as I was saying, this section of the letter displays another common feature in Paul’s letters to the churches. He generally assures the Churches to whom he writes that he is praying for them. Churches should know that their pastors and leaders are praying for them.
In this passage John Calvin says that God sends people to Hell for no other reason than that God wishes to do so:
“Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated…. This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.”
You can find the definition of “reprobation” here at thefreedictionary.com: “(Theology) Christianity: condemnation to eternal punishment in hell; rejection by God.”
I find the doctrine of Calvinistic predestination — which Calvin himself says includes the idea of reprobation — i.e. that God sends people to Hell by God’s own choice and design — deeply distasteful.
John Wesley was also horrified by it:
John Wesley (1703-1791)
This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing) one might say to our adversary, the devil, “Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men? Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the ‘fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but ‘the smoke of their torment,’ because it is God’s good pleasure, ‘ascendeth up for ever and ever.’ “
I occasionally get push back on this. Like this message, which I received several years ago:
Those who come will be accepted. You cite that like God will exclude any who come. Faith in the finished works of Christ (active and passive obedience) and repentance are the appointed means to salvation. faith and repentance as well as regeneration are the work of the Spirit (God) in us to point us to Christ (God-man), and it’s by grace from Abba Father (God).
I do not mean to deny salvation by grace. This person’s comment tries to put the best foot forward and ignore the chilling realities of Calvin’s doctrine. But, to “reprobate” people means that God has chosen to send them to hell “for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.” They did not come because God had determined beforehand that they could not come.
This next correspondent was much more angry with me, he’s a little inarticulate, but he was probably so angry it was hard to type:
Sir,
God’s holiness, justice and righteousness is beyond anyone’s mind to measure, they did not come because they are determined to walk away and hate God. God left them condemned already in their own weight. Christ (the word who is God became flesh) came to the rescue of many appointed to salvation and the Holy Spirit intervenes, changed their inner being and to enable them to follow Him willingly this was to show His grace, mercy and love beyond measure, and off the chart of anyone’s capacity to comprehend.
Now, who is responsible for the damnation of the reprobates: is it God? Yes, because he is just to punish them, is God responsible for their committed crimes? no, it is not He who created sin in them, He did not. He made the decree of man’s disobedience but allowed it to happen because of man’s independent rebellion.
God is just to send all humanity to hell but by His sovereign electing grace chose a definite people for Himself and set them apart to express His mercy and love. This is the revelation of His attributes and He cannot abandon one attribute for the sake another and that’s what Christ did to satisfy justice and appeased wrath through His death on the cross and can now be still holy, just, righteous, gracious, merciful, and loving. You should have considered this.
Let me also explain this quote “God sends people to Hell for no other reason than that God wishes to do so” He has all the reason and God wishes to do so because of their sin, yet He is willing to save some for the praise of His glorious grace and that’s good news! Calvin simply wanted to refute the error of those who admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobate which is illogical. reprobate is a ‘sinner’ who is not of the elect and is predestined to damnation and again, God did not predestined them to commit sin nor predestined anyone to commit suicide yet allowed it to happen anyway out of their own weight and predestined them into condemnation and there’s no need the power of God to make them reprobate but only out of their own weight. He is not surprised because He upholds everything from eternity past to eternal future.
Again God did not manipulate sin to enter but simply allows it to take place for a greater purpose and that includes the revelation of Himself to His creation through His redemptive acts recorded is Scripture.
Well, while I appreciate his rushing to the defense of Mr. Calvin, this is all gobbledygook to me. While this is not well written, the writer has stated the Calvinistic line pretty well (from what I know of it). But, it still doesn’t make any sense to me.
However, the “love” and “justice” of the Creator he describes is not either “love” or “justice” in any really meaningful sense. The love and justice of the Creator that he posits are contrary to love and justice as we would understand them.
Since we are spiritually shaped by the God we serve, this type of theology seems to me to be morally and spiritually toxic. It undermines the meaning of both love and justice. I know many very good Christians — and there have been many throughout Christian history — who subscribe to this type of theology but whose lives rise above it and I am thankful for that — and for them. Certainly God is faithful and sometimes overlooks our faults and misconceptions. Certainly there are many things about God that we will never understand fully because our minds are incapable of conceiving of God as God truly is. I believe all forms of determinism — this would include the Calvinistic theology to which this correspondent subscribes, but would also include naive forms of universalism, and atheistic forms of determinism — undermine the notion of moral responsibility and trivialize human action.
It does not exalt the sovereignty of God to make God a deterministic monster. I believe that the God revealed to us in Jesus Christ is a God of universal grace and love. I believe of Christ that: “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.” (John 1:4 NRSV).
I believe that salvation is offered to all — not as a ruse, but as a reality.
John Wesley (1703-1791).
“I appeal to every impartial mind… whether the mercy of God would not be far less gloriously displayed, in saving a few by his irresistible power, and leaving all the rest without help, without hope, to perish everlastingly, than in offering salvation to every creature, actually saving all that consent thereto, and doing for the rest all that infinite wisdom, almighty power, and boundless love can do, without forcing them to be saved.”
— John Wesley, “Predestination Calmly Considered.”
P. S. Actually, there are some forms of Reformed theology to which I have little or no real substantive objection. And, while I often quote Calvin unflatteringly, he said and taught many good things — and at times, seems less strict in his “Calvinism” than many of his followers are.
People sometimes get idyllic notions of what the early Church was like. It is imagined that the early Church was more Spirit-filled, more unified, free from many of the problems the Church has today. It’s just part of that instinctive yearning people have for “the good old days.” I don’t know why people believe in this notion. It seems to be intuitive: sometime, way back when, people didn’t have the problems we have today. But, a careful reading of the letters of the apostle Paul in our New Testament will quickly disprove this notion.
The letters of Paul were often written to correct false teachings and false practices that had arisen in the churches to which he wrote. We owe much of the New Testament to the problems in the early Church.
Some of the unique features of Paul’s letter to the Colossians can be explained by the fact that the apostle Paul is replying to a type of false teaching (or false teachings) that were circulating in the Colossian church. This concern comes to the surface, for example here:
