In Acts 17: 10-12, Paul and Silas, as missionaries in the city of Berea, preached to mostly Jews and to some Greeks. Of course they preached the Word of God, but it was in terms of the gospel, which was a new and different way of God’s salvation plan to the ears of the Bereans.

The Bereans, unlike the Jews in other locales, didn’t automatically dismiss what Paul and Silas had to say. The Bereans were eager and patient to hear anything that purported to be God’s Word. More importantly than that, though; after listening, they then went to examine the Scriptures to see if what was said was so.

This is exactly what we should do when confronted with ideas and concepts that may differ from the broad mainstream of Christianity. In my writings, there are some unorthodox ideas and concepts, especially expressed in the “articles” section of this blog. For instance, controversial are my writings on food, the tribulation period, state of the dead, definition of the soul, hell, the millennium, and the Sabbath. Heck, I’ve even presented a different take on the gospel itself in one of my regular blog posts called In Jesus (click here to read it).

Because of thousands of years of tradition, I understand that it is easy and somewhat natural to be defensive about what has been handed down to the mainstream. After all, when the number of believers of those teachings adds up to a majority, there’s a sense that the teachings must be right. But suppose; just suppose that Satan has caused some of those traditional doctrines to be distorted.

You can’t say that’s impossible. It’s certainly probable for him to do. Satan, as the ultimate Antichrist, has actively sought from the beginning to lead astray God’s people. He’s done this, of course, because he’s against God; and to a large extent, he’s been effective with his opposition by counterfeiting himself as God. This strategy of his is the classic definition of “Anti,” which means both “against” and “substitution.” As such, from the times of the early church, Satan has inserted his influence in some of the church’s affairs and doctrines.

Obviously, the thinking in my writings is that I’m exposing Satan’s influence, which as much as possible, I try and back up with biblical references. All I ask is that my views not be automatically rejected by a surface reaction. Please, let your conclusions be reached, not through the lens of tradition, but by examining Scripture (concordances are helpful too) to see if what I say is so.