HOW CAN YOU SPOT A HERETIC? (PART 1 OF 2)

Northeast Church of Christ, Cookeville, TN

 Both Testaments warn against false prophets and false teachers. But is it as easy to beware them as it looks? 

Let me divide two different groups of false teachers to start with. One is an apostate, which means one who has fallen away. This refers to one who has departed the faith. The Bible warns of those who will fall away (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

The second is a word I hear more often: heresy (referring to the teaching) or heretic (referring to the teacher). The dictionary describes heresy as an unorthodox opinion or doctrine. The word "heresy" appears four times in the New Testament, and "heretic" once. The Greek words are respectively hairesis and hairetikos; the former word is also translated as "sect" in several places in Acts. 

In The Complete Word Study Dictionary, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates points out that the Greek word is relating to choosing and taking for yourself. He distinguishes heresy from schism, which involves a tearing away. A heretic can be part of the church, even though he has divergent beliefs.

In typical usage, there is a negative connotation to heresies and heretics. There are many heretics who take a view contrary to the Bible, such as Marcion who tries to take away the Jewishness and humanity of Christ or Arius who took the opposite error of denying Jesus' Deity. Many would put the prosperity gospel in that category.

However, a minority are branded heretics by the majority when in truth the majority are the ones who have drifted from the truth and the "heretics" are the ones who search the Scripture daily as the Bereans were applauded for doing (Acts 17:11). In Acts 24, when Paul is accused by the Jews before Felix, the Jews call Paul the ringleader of the Nazarene sect, and Paul responds that his belief, called a heresy by the Jews, is the truth. (I italicized "sect" and "heresy" to point out that in the Greek text, it's the same word.) I had a Bible College teacher say he's proud to be called a heretic by the real heretics.

This leads me to another point. Heretical views have a lot of overlap with Biblical ones. In fact, often a heresy is formed by focusing on one Biblical concept and giving it undue importance while minimizing the due importance of the other side of the coin. One example is in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Some on both sides correctly realize they're both part the body of Christ, but others on both sides brand their opposition as heretics teaching a false Gospel. Could it be that it's not the accused but the accusers that are the heretics? 

One other thing about heretics is that they commit the abomination of sowing discord among the brethren (Prov. 6:16-19). First off, heretics don't hold their views quietly; rather, they are quick to promote it. They will go to certain passages trying to get you in a corner, and of course those Scriptures are taken out of context. Should you challenge them and point out they're in error, will they ever show godly humility by admitting their wrong? No, they won't concede any error on their part; they'll find another route to attack. And they will keep attacking until either they convince you their error is truth or until you become weary and let them have the last deceptive word.

Allow me to close this point - if you see someone standing up for Biblcal truth, please encourage him! Often in these discussions, I feel alone. Those standing for Biblical truth deserve to have their brothers and sisters to hold their hands up and if not go on the offensive to join in refuting the erroneous troublemaker, then thanking and complimenting the warrior for orthodoxy. 

By the way, I'll be dealing more with this topic in a couple of days.  

WILL ALL THE LEGALISTS AND DIVISIVE PEOPLE PLEASE STAND UP?

 

Interesting - I don't see anybody standing up. Are you sure that none of you reading this are legalists or divisive people? Or is it that nobody fits those categories?

Let's start with legalism. One problem is what does it mean? If a Christian condemns another because they don't listen to the right style of music or use the correct Bible translation or have their hair too long or are not observing the Sabbath on the correct day, are they being legalistic? Or to be a legalist do you have to go beyond judging and have to make those issues a salvation issue?

That's why nobody will claim to be a legalist. It may be that they don't believe they are being legalistic but rather that they are trying to stand for truth. With the examples used above, they may be convicted that a rock beat is Satanic, or that some translations (more accurately, most translations) are using corrupted texts, or that the NT deals with men wearing long hair, or that God desires us, whether Jew or Gentile, to set aside the 7th Day. 

Allow me to say that people who have these convictions have reasons for them. The thing after the last thing I should do is to criticize them for those convictions. Rather, I should applaud when they live out their convictions. 

However, those convictions are not my convictions. I might have different convictions. If so, I need to do two things... no, let me say I need to do one thing and avoid the other thing. What I need to do is to live out my convictions. The thing I need to reject is expecting others to live my convictions. If I make that mistake, I'm being divisive.

I remember years ago reading a post on the internet where the person says he believes all Christians should be united. Thus, he invites all Christians in denominations other than his to leave their groups and join his. Is that the true spirit of unity?

Too often, when we have debates, we accept nothing less than unconditional surrender on the other side, while we don't have to give up a thing. I read a book on worship where the author said that those who prefer contemporary worship music should give preference to those who prefer the traditional style. No problem with that, but did the author do the right thing and expect those with traditional preferences to give preference to the contemporaries? Uh, no. He actually ended the book with a list of things contemporaries should give up, such as using overheads and instead returning to hymnals.

My hope is that those who are divisive are unaware of that tendency. It would be a shame for them to know they're causing division and not care. No, it wouldn't be a shame; it would be a sin. 

Yes, God wants us to be likeminded, but does that mean we're to be copies of each other? Didn't God create us different for His purposes? 

Have you encountered someone who had legalistic tendencies or was divisive? Do you have any of those characteristics that you may be blind to? How do we promote true Christian liberty without tolerating what Scripture clearly states is false doctrine and/or ungodly living?