Why Doctrinal Distortions Don’t Bother God — The Truth May Surprise You

While it is reasonable to ask whether anything can ever perturb the Almighty, the title should be understood within its proper context. Before questioning how I arrived at the conclusion that distorted doctrines do not trouble God, consider this: would you remain anxious after identifying a problem and already having an adequate solution to it? The answer will become clearer as we proceed, beginning with a simple example of how Christian doctrines can differ.

Some pastors teach that angels are at the disposal of believers, while others argue that angels do not serve man’s commands but are ministers of the Almighty. Interestingly, both positions are supported with scriptural references.

Beyond the long-running debate over tithing, few issues have generated as much passion as the ongoing argument between hyper-grace and legalism, particularly the doctrine of Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS). A recent exchange illustrates the complexity surrounding such doctrinal disagreements.

Dr David Ogbueli, drawing from John 1:17, taught his congregation that while Moses brought the law, Jesus brought “Grace and Truth.” He argued that one of Christianity’s major challenges today is that many believers have placed disproportionate emphasis on grace while neglecting truth. According to him, this imbalance is partly responsible for the decline in the fear of the Lord among some Christians.

Responding to this position, Dr Abel Damina argued that the “and” in John 1:17 should not necessarily be understood as a conjunction separating two distinct divine attributes. He pointed to the Greek word Kai, which can mean “which is,” “that is,” or “even.” Thus, he interpreted the passage as “Grace which is Truth,” “Grace, that is Truth,” or “Grace, even Truth.” The disagreement underscores just how complicated doctrinal interpretation can become.

A video that circulated widely recently featured Apostle Gideon Odoma suggesting that Christ’s birth, earthly ministry, death, burial and resurrection do not, by themselves, provide the complete picture of God’s character. According to him, hyper-grace proponents make the mistake of treating Christ’s ascension as the end of the story when, in his view, there are still aspects of Christ’s mission yet to be fulfilled.

Odoma argued that if one concludes that God does not do something simply because Jesus did not do it during His earthly ministry, such a conclusion would be incomplete. He cited Christ’s future role as Judge as an example, noting that Jesus did not judge people during His earthly ministry in the manner He is expected to at His second coming.

Although the argument may appear plausible at first glance, it raises significant theological questions. In particular, it appears to blur the distinction between Jesus of Nazareth in His earthly ministry and Jesus Christ in the fullness of His divine identity.

How can anyone argue that what we know of Jesus is insufficient to reveal God when Christ Himself declared in John 14:9, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”? Jesus made that declaration before His crucifixion and resurrection. If His earthly ministry was insufficient to reveal the character of God, why would He make such an unequivocal statement?

Moreover, Christ declared on the cross that His work was finished. To insist that believers must look primarily to His second coming before they can fully understand God risks presenting an incomplete picture of the revelation already given through Christ.

What such an argument also appears to overlook is the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised that the Spirit of Truth would guide believers into truth and reveal things to come. John 16:13 makes this clear. The Holy Spirit, therefore, continues the work of guiding believers into the implications of Christ’s finished work and the things that are yet to come.

The problem of doctrinal distortion is not peculiar to Nigerian Christianity. It is a global phenomenon, and it exists both within and outside individual denominations.

There have been instances in which major Christian institutions and influential ministers have reconsidered positions they previously taught. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has revisited certain formulations concerning Mary, while Jehovah’s Witnesses have modified aspects of their position on blood transfusions.

Similarly, prominent American televangelist Creflo Dollar publicly acknowledged in 2022 that his previous teaching on compulsory tithing was not supported by the New Testament. In Nigeria, the General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, Pastor E A Adeboye, apologised in 2024 for his earlier statement that failure to pay tithes could prevent someone from making heaven, acknowledging that the claim was not biblical.

Pastor William Kumuyi of the Deeper Life Christian Ministry also made a significant observation during the 2025 Global Family and Marriage Conference when the church modified its position on courtship visits. The new arrangement allowed engaged couples to visit each other under the supervision of a church elder.

Kumuyi reportedly explained that the earlier restriction was not directly derived from Scripture, adding that Christians should be mature enough to distinguish between what comes from God and what is merely a church principle.

Such developments demonstrate an important reality: doctrines are not the same thing as the Gospel itself. They can evolve, be corrected and even be abandoned when they are found to lack adequate scriptural foundation. That is one reason God need not be disturbed by unhealthy doctrines—they have a lifespan, while truth ultimately prevails.

These examples are also commendable because they demonstrate the willingness of Christian leaders and institutions to reconsider positions that are not sufficiently grounded in Scripture. What is unfortunate, however, is the growing tendency for different Christian denominations and ministers to present divergent interpretations with such hostility that they sometimes appear to be preaching entirely different faiths.

The historical differences between Orthodox and Pentecostal Christianity may once have been considered manageable. But the intensity of doctrinal disagreements among Nigerian evangelicals appears to be reaching an unhealthy level. It is difficult to reconcile the use of insults and vitriol against fellow ministers with the message of the Prince of Peace.

Perhaps this doctrinal confusion explains a recent observation by Pastor Poju Oyemade, who wrote that no wrong doctrine, regardless of how loudly it is promoted, will ultimately settle in the hearts of most of God’s people because regular Bible reading will expose believers to Scriptures that contradict it.

Indeed, many practices and teachings found in churches are not explicitly supported by Scripture. Pastor Kumuyi illustrated this point when he acknowledged that there is no “marriage committee” prescribed in the New Testament. According to him, the structure was created as a matter of church administration and assistance, not because the Bible contains a specific command establishing it.

Studying Scripture, as the Berean believers did in Acts 17:11, is therefore essential. But Scripture alone, as text, does not automatically guarantee correct understanding. If reading the Scriptures were sufficient by itself, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day—who studied the Torah extensively—would have recognised Him as the Messiah.

Jesus repeatedly challenged them with questions such as, “Have you not read?” and “Have you never read?” Their familiarity with Scripture did not necessarily translate into accurate spiritual understanding.

This does not diminish the importance of Scripture in confronting false teaching. Christ’s words in John 10:4-5 and Paul’s instruction in Colossians 3:16 both affirm the central role of God’s Word. However, believers also need something beyond intellectual engagement with Scripture—a divine guide capable of helping them discern truth from error.

That guide is the Holy Spirit.

The Father, knowing from the beginning that humanity would need divine guidance, made the Holy Spirit available to believers. Since Pentecost in Acts 2, the Spirit has remained at work, teaching believers and bringing Christ’s words to their remembrance, as Jesus promised in John 14:26.

John 16:8 further describes the Spirit’s role in exposing sin and bringing conviction, while John 15:26 identifies Him as the Spirit of Truth. This ministry of the Holy Spirit is essential to spiritual discernment and to recognising teachings that deviate from the truth.

So, why should God be overwhelmed by the damaging effects of false teachers when He has already warned believers that such teachers would arise and has provided the means to discern and resist their teachings? Scriptures such as 1 Timothy 4:1-2 and 2 Peter 2:1-16 explicitly warn about false teachers and their destructive influence.

The responsibility, therefore, rests with believers to refuse gullibility and manipulation by studying the Word and remaining sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, as theologians, preachers, teachers and Christian apologists engage in exegesis and hermeneutics, they must remember the solemn warning contained in Revelation 22:18-19 about adding to or taking away from God’s Word.