DISCERNING SHEEP FROM GOATS AND WOLVES - IS IT AS EASY AS WE THINK?

Northeast Church of Christ, Cookeville, TN

 

        "Then you shall again discern Between the righteous and the wicked, Between one who serves God And one who does not serve Him." Malachi 3:18, New King James Version

A couple of days ago, I read a story in an update from CBN about a foreign evangelist being deported from the U.S. He formed a group, the name of which intrigued me, sounding like one that takes a firm stand. I was ready to like his FB page, and support this brother who was unjustly treated by his native country.

However, I remembered what it said in Proverbs 18:17 - "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." Maybe this person is standing for the truth, and maybe he has false teaching. So I searched for other pages dealing with this individual and his group.

Fairly quickly I found a Facebook page focused on the false teaching. This meant one of two things: 

1. This "evangelist" was a false teacher, and the page was wisely warning against him, or 
2. The warning group were themselves false teachers, and they were trying to discredit a true minister.

So I looked at this page. If I scrolled down far enough, I may have found some doctrinal fallacy of this evangelist, but the posts I saw sounded more like, "I don't like this evangelist guy so he's a false teacher and if you're wise you'll take my word without checking me out." Sorry, but I did not sense a godly attitude in this "watchman."

Fortunately, as I looked down at other posts, I saw one by "Got Questions," which I find reliable in information and of a calm spirit instead of having an attitude. They pointed out what the implications of the group's name was, which basically means "The church got it wrong for centuries so I've arrived to straighten things out." They pointed out some of the theological thought of the group, one of which I considered a yellow light and the other was a red light. 

I've said for years that one of the biggest problems of the church is that we want to unite with those we should be divided from and divided from those we should be united with. True, I am an encourager at heart (I don't know if my reviews and interviews reflect that), but I also want to take a stand for truth. I'm aware that unity between believers is not necessarily uniformity, but I also want to take a firm stand for truth.

There are things that make me wary when I hear them. The "one true Church" mentality. Baptismal regeneration (meaning you need to be baptized by water to be saved), especially when coupled with a formula (e.g. "for the remission of sins" or "in the name of Jesus"). Claiming some of the apostles are false teachers (I've encountered people who blacklist either Paul or James). Biggest two? Denying Jesus is God come in the flesh and that our salvation isn't paid in full by Christ's sacrifice on the cross but that we need to earn through works (or obedience) salvation.

But God has not left us alone in trying to tell who's representing the truth and who's not. I believe there are three things that will help:

1. The Bible, where the plain sense meaning is trusted. If it is of God, it will agree with what's written in Scripture. Not just an isolated verse that might not even be a whole sentence, but passages in context and developed throughout Scripture. Experience may help, but it does not replace the written Word of God.
   
2. The indwelling Holy Spirit. He will guide you through Scripture and also help you stay on the right track. And if you're a believer, then the Spirit is indwelling you.
3. The local church. Yes, the local church is made of fallible humans. But if the pastor is regularly preaching Scripture, you'll learn what Biblical thinking is. Just as God did not leave us without His Spirit, He also has put us in communion with like-minded believers to  travel in the truth together, which is why we're commanded to stir up love and good works and not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, exhorting one another instead.

HERESY HUNTING; A HOLY HABIT OR A HURTFUL, HATEFUL, HAUGHTY HOBBY? PART 2 OF 2

Crossroads Baptist Church, Indianapolis

Let me start right off by saying we are commanded to contend for the faith against the ungodly who creep in with heresies and the like (Jude 3-4). When we see heresy, we need to confront it. Is that clear?

As I mentioned in the previous blog, though, heretics aren't quiet about their errant beliefs. They want to convert the unsuspecting to their view. But their focus is on those who have some belief in Christ; they're not trying to convince the ungodly. In other words, you don't have to look for heresy: the heretics are looking for you! 

I'll be honest - I don't really enjoy confronting false teachers or others who sow discord among fellow believers. A debate where respect is mutual and where both participants know how to listen as well as speak is a different story. But heretics, as I mentioned in the previous installment, want to weary you and expect you to do 100% of the listening and cave in, while they have no willingness to do either. Add to that - I'd rather encourage those who are presenting the truth of the Biblical Gospel (be it preaching, music, writing, art, etc.) than deal with those who are promoting error. Definitely more joy in one than the other.

However, there are those who consider themselves to be heretic hunters. They not only actively seek out error, they actually seem to delight in it. 

In the title, I asked the question. Is heresy hunting a holy habit that protects believers from false teaching? Or is it a haughty, hateful, harmful hobby that offends the body of Christ and turns away potential believers?

The reality is that what one person considers heresy another considers truth. One says sound doctrine teaches you can lose your salvation, while another says sound doctrine teaches you cannot lose your salvation. I read one blog saying free will is a false gospel and another saying Calvinists can't be saved. Both sides on these and other issues teach that the Bible is a believer's authority, that Jesus the Son of God and God the Son came and died for our sins, that we're saved by grace alone through faith alone, but for some, it's not enough that we agree on what most Christians consider the essentials. 

To me, heresy hunters are not unlike the Pharisees in Jesus' time. They resemble the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7), who cannot bear the wicked and who tested the false apostles but have left their love for God and especially for one another. 

Yes, there is plenty of apostacy and heresy in Christiandom, and some popular Christian leaders are promoting what Peter calls a damnable heresy (2 Peter 2:1), and we need to warn others. But often, I see attacks on well-known Christians which seem more like jealousy and the kind of judging Jesus was commanding His followers to not do.

As I imply in the title, I see pride and haughtiness in a lot of heresy hunting. I also see hatred of the popular and of those who disagree on any topic the heresy hunter wants to make a line in the sand. The result is discord among brethren, with harm done to fellow Christians, and a joyless, peaceless. loveless, patience-less environment.

Believers, I believe our job is to encourage one another, not tear each other down. We should rejoice not in putting the errant in their place but in seeing the lost saved. Like Paul, we should rejoice whenever someone preaches Christ, not finding a reason to oppose one's brothers and sisters in Christ.

 
 

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.  

CANONICAL FALSE GOSPELS?

Semper Reformanda - Always Reforming. Courtesy of James Lawson.

AUTHOR'S NOTE - I wrote this a few years ago as a Facebook note. I've decided to make this my Reformation Day post for the year. So, Happy Reformation Day!

 Just when you think you've heard everything.

In an internet group, someone was claiming the Letter of James was a false gospel and that the half-brother of Jesus was the organizer of the Judaizers Paul condemned when writing to the Galatians. The person making that claim was asked if he was implying that James' letter shouldn't be included in Scripture.

No, he insisted James belonged in the Canon of Scripture so we'd know what his false teaching looked like.

If he stopped at James being a Judaizer and his Epistle being a false gospel, I would think he's wrong and outside the mainstream, but he's not the first to have problems with James and the apparent conflict with Paul's grace theology. The church leaders deciding on the canon dealt with the same question. Martin Luther called that book "An epistle of straw" (though he later changed his mind). Les Feldick believes Christian theology should be based on Paul, and that James and the other general epistles were written for Jews, not the Church. Calling James a false gospel is a step further, but I would consider that an error.

The idea that a false gospel could be canonical, however, is what I consider a very dangerous idea that must be defeated. Allow me to give three reasons why.

1. It leads to confusion.

If God wanted James in there as a false gospel so we'd see the error, have we missed others? The Jesus Seminar suggested we should add the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas - maybe that should be to show the error of Gnosticism. Many consider Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Prosperity Gospel to be false teaching - should they be included as well so we can see what the error looks like?

Let's go a step further. Protestants and Jews do not accept the deutero-canonical books (aka the Catholic apocrypha) because they don't feel they pass the test of being canonical. If we allow false gospels in, what right do we have to exclude these writings?

Now, there are false statements in Scripture. For example, the false prophecy of Hananiah in Jeremiah's day, or the errant theology of Job's friends. But in both cases, these errors are in context with the error being refuted. Let me add another refuted false teaching - that of the Judaizers, which Paul deals with in his letter to the Galatians. (Which calls to question the need for a book of Judazing teaching, as James is proposed of being, since the heresy is dealt with already in Scripture.)

This leads to why this view is dangerous. If a book that is strictly false teaching is included in Scripture without refutation, someone might assume its inclusion is an endorsement, and that false gospel is treated as God's truth. And if the person calling James a false gospel is correct, this has happened, because a near-unaminous majority of believers are convinced James is just as much the true word of God as the rest of the Biblical authors.

Furthermore, who decides which books are God's Word and which are false Gospels? My friend seems to consider himself that sort of authority, since most people don't agree with him. But someone else might differ. I had one friend who didn't think Esther needed to be in Scripture, and another who thought there were missing books that needed to be added to the Bible's 66 but when his Bible came out, he left out Song of Solomon.

2. It undermines the authority of Scripture.

A common myth is that the Catholic Church picked the books that fit its political view and omitted other equally worthy books. Not so. The process of Canonization determined on a basis of certain qualifications which books were included and which weren't. There were books that missed one of the qualificatons that were discussed before being included. For example, the question about who wrote Hebrews. Or Esther not mentioning the name of God. Or Jude including quotes from apocryphal books.

By the way, where did the word "canon" come from? One view is that it is taken from the Hebrew word qaneh, which means a cane or measuring stick. Thus, Scripture is a guide if something is consistent with God's Wrod or if it isn't. This was one of the tests - does a book contradict with other Scripture? Case in point is whether James' "Faith Without Works Is Dead" is countering Paul's emphasis on justification by faith. With careful study, though, there is no contradiction between James and Paul.

Furthermore, Scripture talks about itself as being true and having come directly from God, such as Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 8:20, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:21. Including a false gospel as Canon would invalidate these verses, and if we take the next step, we'll see the biggest danger of canonical false gospels.

3. It attacks the character of God.

I will state that I sincerely doubt the person claiming James is a canonical false gospel would imagine he's doing this, but this argument unknowingly does so. Let me explain why I feel so strongly.

As stated before, the Bible is God's Word, spoken by God. Scripture also says God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). A false gospel is a lie. If a false gospel is canonical, then God is inspiring the author to write a lie. Thus, there are only three conclusions:

1) James is a false gospel and also canonical, which means God isnpired a lie and the Bible, which states He cannot lie, is worthless and not to be trusted;

2) James is a false gospel, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be canonical, or

3) James is canonical, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be a false gospel.

What is the reason for this theory of canonical false gospels? I consider it similar to those who say the Bible is corrupted, who claim the Bible is not sufficient, or that passages that have a clear literal meaning don't really mean what they say. The reason is that the person has a belief that is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.

Let's look at those who think the Bible is corrupted. None ever produce proof of an uncorrupted Bible (at least until they show up to revive the uncorrupted Scripture, they claim). New Agers claim it's corrupted because the original Bible (they claim) agrees with them on reincarnation. Muslims say the uncorrupted Scripture contains prophecies of Mohammed. The House of Yahweh claims Catholics corrupted Scripture by adding in verses about the Trinity and Sunday Worship. In other words, it's always subjective. Of course, those making the claim cannot be wrong, and they don't have the guts to say the Bible's wrong, so they all blame those evil Catholics - even though they don't agree with each other's reasons for the Bible being corrupted.

The bottom line is we need to trust the Bible to be right 100% of the time, to trust the Word of God and not of men. There is no false gospel in the Canon.