Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
The Holy Spirit  /  The Spirit of All Truth  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 8
The Disputation quote says later “new preaching… in later times after the apostles” should mark someone as a false prophet/false Christ, and cites Galatians 1:8–9—how do we apply that without silencing legitimate reform, recovery of neglected truths, or clearer teaching, and what is the difference between “restoring” and “introducing”?
Another way to ask: How can we warn against “new teaching after the apostles” (Gal. 1:8–9) without shutting down real reform or clearer teaching? What is the difference between restoring an old truth and introducing a new one?

Direct Answer Pike’s material suggests the key difference is whether someone is bringing people back to what was “once committed” by the apostles (restoring), or claiming additional doctrine beyond that deposit (introducing). Legitimate reform would be measured by fidelity to the apostolic gospel and practice, while “new doctrine” that goes beyond Scripture or contradicts it falls under Galatians’ warning.

Support from Transcript:

  • The Disputation says to “introduce new preaching, teaching…after the apostles” is not held out to later persons; if it appears, the person is a “false prophet or a false Christ.”
  • It warns against “set[ting] up any new dogma” and cites Galatians: “If anyone preaches any other gospel…let him be accursed.”
  • It concludes: “in addition to what has been once committed to us by the apostles, a disciple of Christ should receive nothing as new doctrine.”
  • Pike frames the church’s job as “guard, protect…preserve the faith…with no additions nor subtractions,” echoing restoration not innovation.
  • He cites 2 Tim 2:1–2 as a chain of faithful transmission, not a chain of discoveries.
  • He warns not to be impressed by titles/degrees; even “an angel from heaven” cannot change the gospel.
Discussion Follow-ups What examples today look like “recovery” (returning to neglected apostolic teaching) rather than “introduction”? How can a church pursue clearer teaching while still refusing “new dogma”?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10
Back Questions Next