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.

EVEN CHURCH FATHERS CAN BE CONTROVERSIAL - A LOOK AT ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA

 

 

Have you ever heard that there are many ways to interpret the Bible, almost implying that there's no way of knowing what it really means?

This is the halfway point in my 13 installment look at the Church Fathers, using Bryan Litfin's Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction as a guide. Today's subject is Origen. I was about to write "Today's saint," but Origen (like Tertullian) was never canonized. 

I believe I've mentioned in another blog (possibly the one I did for All Saints Day a couple of months ago) that I take the typical Biblicist view of sainthood, which is that all believers are saints. (In all except one of his letters to the churches, Paul addresses the recipients as being saints, including the carnal Corinthians; the exception was the Galatians, where they were on the verge of following "another gospel.") With that definition, I definitely consider Origen a saint (and the same for Tertullian, but you might remember me referring to that a couple of days ago).

Why do I unhesitatingly consider him a saint? Two reasons. He clearly loved the Lord, and he loved the church. He got carried away in trying to live out the passage of being a eunuch for God's sake (which he later realized was unwise), and lived a life of self-sacrifice which weakened him physically. He also taught others the Gospel during a time of severe persecution, and when his students were arrested, Origen risked his freedom visiting them in prison and shouting encouragement to them when they faced martyrdom (which Origen later did as well).

Some of you may not have known this about Origen. Those who are familiar with him probably associate him first of all with his allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Those who know my life story are aware I went to a Bible college that emphasized a literal interpretation of Scripture, and view symbolizing Scripture with wariness, afraid the interpreter will use that hermeneutic to justify any fanciful thing he would think of. On the other hand, though, is there an equally dangerous extreme of plain sense interpretation, where we believe that an unbeliever is able to read Scripture and understand what it means?

First of all, Origen believed the Bible was Spiritual, and thus there was more to it than the historical/literal words (which Origen did not reject). Also, being aware of the danger I mentioned above, he established three safeguards against his allegories taking us to la la land. They are:

1. The Catholic Church's Rule of Faith. The Rule of Faith is the precursor to the Apostle's Creed, and Origen was in agreement with other church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian concerning what it taught.
2. The nature of Scripture. Origen believed Scripture was both about Christ and from Him. See John 5:39. If you've heard some say that Jesus is on every page of the Bible, you're repeating a concept that may have originated with Origen.
   
3. The upright character of the interpreter. To understand Scripture requires a pure heart. Godly maturity and wisdom prevent going into error.

Origen was definitely considered a Biblical scholar. His allegorical approach was not due to a lack of respect for Scripture but rather the opposite. Is it possible that, as Festus taunted Paul, that much learning made him mad? Should we be skeptical of Christian intellectuals and academians? Or are we going the other direction and promoting anti-intellectualism? 

There are ideas that Origen came up with which weren't completely orthodox. For example, he believed that Satan would eventually repent, and that our resurrection bodies won't be physical, neither view being accepted by the mainstream church. But anybody who's familiar with Pilgrim's Progress or the Chronicles of Narnia realize symbolism and story can effectively communicate truth.