|
 I thank God, Jim Everett, and each participant today for this opportunity for us
to study God’s Word together. I come not as a representative of any church, group, or other man but am simply speaking
my convictions as a Bible student, though I am not ashamed to be counted the follow-laborer of any man who is "set for the defense of the gospel"
(2 Tim. 1:8; Phil. 1:17).
The Text: 2 Peter 2:1
Peter wrote by divine inspiration, "But
there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction"
(2 Pet. 2:1). A false teacher is someone who teaches false doctrine
or "damnable heresies,"
things contrary to God’s Word which cause people to sin and to be lost. In the day of inspiration, false prophets
falsely claimed to receive their messages by the direct inspiration of God, and some so claim today. It is crucial
to note that the expressions false doctrine and false teacher do not refer to someone holding a mere mistaken view
but rather refer to teaching flagrant errors which violate the original teaching or "doctrine
of Christ" and thus involve people in actual transgression
or sin against that divine revelation (2 Jn. 9).
The essential, defining trait of teaching which makes it damnable heresy or false
doctrine is departure from divine revelation involving sin and thus leading to the destruction of souls. A false
teacher is one who teaches false doctrine. Mistaken views involving no sin against divine revelation do not constitute
damnable heresy. Passages discussing false doctrines and false teachers may or may not mention the character and
motives of such teachers. Today, we may or may not be able to discern the character and motives of false teachers.
The key or essential element which makes a doctrine or teacher "false" is not the teacher’s character
or motive but is the doctrine’s departure from revealed truth which involves people in sin and causes their souls
to be lost.
The current discussion of the meaning of false teacher was sparked by Ed Harrell’s
article in Christianity Magazine,
November 1988, entitled "Homer Hailey: False Teacher?" Though Harrell viewed Hailey’s teaching on divorce
and remarriage flawed or false, he assessed his character and motives to be good. On this basis, Harrell rejected
"the label ‘false teacher’ with reference to Homer Hailey." The discussion reached far beyond the perimeters
of Christianity Magazine
with brethren far and wide studying and debating the meaning of "false teacher." Debate over this issue
has accompanied the gradual development of digression over instrumental music, missionary societies, premillennialism,
institutionalism, social gospel practices, the grace-fellowship heresy of the 1970's, and now divorce-remarriage
and fellowship. The issue before us will have to be settled by appealing not to past generations but to "the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:ll).
I. Introduction:
Satan, Origin of False Doctrine
Satan perverted the truth when he told Eve, "Thou
shalt not surely die" (Gen.
3:4). Jesus said of Satan, "He
is a liar, and the father of it" (Jn. 8:44). Paul feared that Satan would
use "his ministers"
to divert our thinking away from "the simplicity that is in
Christ," or from our single-minded devotion to the original
message of Christ (2 Cor. 11:3-4, 13-15). False teachers and their followers constitute the church or "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9).
In short, Satan is the origin of all false doctrines and thus the father of all
false teachers. Satan leads us into sin and destroys our souls by changing the meaning and application of God’s
Word. God’s people need to have a sober, healthy, deep, abiding fear of false doctrine and its disastrous consequences.
God warned of this danger when he spoke of "doctrines of demons" and "damnable heresies" (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 2:1).
II. Define "False" in False Doctrine:
Claims & Teaching or Character & Motives?
Let us determine how the term "false" is used to describe various men
teaching dangerous error to learn whether the word denotes his false claims and teaching or his bad character and
motives.
False Christ. Jesus warned of
"false Christs, and false prophets" who would arise to "deceive the very
elect." "Then
if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not" (Matt. 24:23-24). A false Christ is "one who falsely lays claim to the name and office of the
Messiah" (J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 676). Notice Jesus mentions both the man professing to be Christ and other
men who support that claim. They all are false teachers because their words and professed proof are false, no matter
what their character and motives might be otherwise.
False Witness. When Paul defended
the original gospel message against some who denied the resurrection, he argued, "And
if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses
of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead
rise not" (1 Cor. 15:14-15). If there is no resurrection,
and Paul testified that God raised Jesus, then Paul is a false witness, regardless of his character and motives.
In that case, even if his character is good in many ways, those who believe his message remain hopelessly lost
in their sins.
False Apostle. Paul warned of
some who claimed to preach Jesus but changed the original message, and who claimed to be apostles but were not.
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2 Cor. 11:4, 13).
"They were deceitful because they led the Corinthians to believe that they were representatives of Christ"
(Fred Fisher, Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians, p. 413). False apostle means "one who falsely claims to be an ambassador
of Christ" (Thayer, p. 675). Paul said Satan claims to bring "light" and "his ministers" claim to preach "righteousness," but the claims are false (vv.
14-15). The claims are false, no matter what the motives.
False Brother. The Judaizing teachers
were "false brethren,"
Paul said, not because of bad character but because they sought to "bring
us into bondage" to circumcision and the Law of Moses. No
concessions or compromises were made with these false teachers "that
the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:3-5). The battle was not
over the character of these men but over whether circumcision and the Old Law are binding in "the truth of the gospel." True
brethren taught and practiced what Paul did, and those who did not were false brethren.
False Knowledge. Paul warned Timothy
to guard or "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so call: which some professing have erred concerning
the faith" (1
Tim. 6:20-21). Any claim to truth or knowledge which violates
"the faith"
originally revealed is false doctrine, no matter how we assess the character and motives of the teacher. He is
a false teacher because his doctrine violates "the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
False Prophet, False Teacher.
Peter warned of "false prophets" and "false teachers" (2 Pet. 2:1). A false prophet is "one who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters
falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies" (Thayer, p. 676). The prefix "pseudo" is attached
to the Greek words for prophet and teacher to indicate "that the claim of the men concerned is false and also
that their teaching is erroneous" (G. Kittel, Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, II:160). In short, what these
men teach is wrong and their claim that their doctrine is authorized by God is untrue. A false teacher is "one
who inculcates false doctrines" or "one who teaches falsehoods" (Harper’s
Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 441; Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
p. 899). In contrast, rather than being teachers of false doctrines, we ought to be "teachers
of good things" (Tit.
2:3; Greek word for "good" attached to word for "teacher").
Clearly, Peter has in mind some specific false teachers. For one thing, they once
had "known the way of righteousness" but "turned from the holy
commandment delivered unto them" (vv. 20-22). Not only will these particular
men teach false doctrines which destroy souls, but also they are motivated by hope of money (vv. 3, 15), they justify immoral conduct
(vv. 10, 13-14, 18),
they are high-minded and view with contempt those who stand in their way (vv.
10-12), and they are eloquent, persuasive speakers offering new
horizons of "liberty"
but actually teaching things which accommodate the sinful "lusts
of the flesh" (2
Pet. 2:17-19). Not all false teachers have all these characteristics
all at once or on all occasions. No one of these characteristics nor any combination of them is essential to the
definition of a false teacher, though such sinful attitudes and actions may accompany false doctrine.
III. Overview of Passages on False Teachers
Let us survey some additional passages in both the Old and New Testaments, reserving
the epistles of John for separate study.
Old Testament Passages. From the
start, God warned His people to hear only those who taught the truth and to reject false prophets and false teachers.
He forbad imitating false religions, but, "What thing soever
I command you, observe to do it: thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deut. 12:29-32). All prophets and all teachers were to be tested by two rules: 1. Any message contrary
to revealed truth, even if accompanied by apparent signs, or 2. any message accompanied by a bogus sign, was positively
false (13:1-5; 18:20-22).
It is not essential to know the speaker’s character and motive to know whether his doctrine is true or false. If
someone as dear "as thine own soul" secretly promoted a false religion, or if it was rumored that a city had come under the
influence of such teachers, a diligent investigation was to be made and the guilty parties put to death (13:6-18). God taught His people
not to tolerate one who taught false doctrine: "Thou shalt
not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither
shalt thou conceal him" (13:8). Dangerous error must be exposed
and refuted today, whether taught secretly or openly, even if the teacher is as dear "as
thine own soul."
False teachers often appear to be honest and sincere, while teachers of truth appear
to be troublemakers. Ahab accused Elijah of troubling Israel because he constantly exposed error and reproved sin
(1 Kgs. 18:17-18).
In Elijah’s debate with the Baal prophets, he ridiculed their foolish claims while they gave every evidence of
sincerity by crying loudly to Baal, leaping on the altar, and even cutting themselves in pleading for Baal to answer
(vv. 26-28). Later,
Zedekiah told Ahab God would deliver Ramoth-Gilead to him. This prophet was so deluded by the "lying spirit" within him that
he mistook this impulse for "the Spirit of the Lord" (1 Kgs. 22:11, 23-24). Self-deception may appear to be sincerity. We cannot always judge a teacher’s
motives, but we can always test his message by God’s Word.
Jeremiah said false prophets in Samaria taught doctrinal error approving "Baal" worship, while false prophets in Jerusalem taught moral error approving "adultery"
(23:13-14). God said false teachers by substituting error for truth "steal my words" from people
and "strengthen also the hands of evil doers, that none doth
return from his wickedness" by giving them assurance of "peace" and safety in
sin (23:30, 14, 17).
The true prophet was commanded by God to "speak my word faithfully," striking against sin and error "like
as a fire" and "like
as a hammer," even though many people would regard such preaching
as a heavy, negative "burden" (23:28-29, 33-40). Derided, defamed, and mocked, Jeremiah once thought of giving up the fight, but he found
God’s "word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in
my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay" (20:9).
People today are pacified in their moral sins and religious errors by false teachers.
It is no more popular to strike sin, error, and false doctrine with the hammer blows of truth today than it was
in Jeremiah’s day. Without Jeremiah’s courage and dedication, we will find ourselves gradually and quietly giving
up the fight–diluting God’s Word and whitewashing both doctrinal and moral error. God’s Word must ever burn in
our hearts, causing us to speak it faithfully under the most trying circumstances.
False doctrine is both popular and dangerous because it loosens the restraints
of God’s Word and gives approval to sinful practices. "If
a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink;
he shall even be the prophet of this people" (Mic. 2:11).
The message of God’s true prophet condemned the very sins allowed by false teachers. "But
truly I am of power by the spirit of the Lord, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression,
and to Israel his sin" (Mic. 3:8). We must be filled with
this same power and courage today.
New Testament Passages. When Jesus
taught about the broad way leading to destruction and the narrow way leading to life, he warned, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves" (Matt.
7:13-23). The message of such teachers is false because it is
contrary to the doctrine of Christ, thus causing men to follow the broad rather than the narrow way. These men
and their messages appear to be harmless but are actually destructive. The "evil
fruit" of false doctrine will be seen in its effect upon
its teachers and followers as they proceed further from the truth, as they lash out at those who expose their errors,
and as they fall into other sinful attitudes and actions. Rather than being manifestly dishonest, many false teachers
are so deeply self-deceived by their apparent devotion to the Lord and their "many
wonderful works" that nothing will undeceive them except
the awful words of Christ on the last day, "Depart from me,
ye that work iniquity" (vv.
21-23). We cannot always accurately assess a teacher’s motives,
but God’s Word is the infallible standard by which to judge the teacher’s doctrine true or false.
Jesus taught that those who teach and follow "the
commandments of men" contrary to the Word of God will be
"rooted up"
and will "fall into the ditch." False teachers "were offended" by such plain, pointed preaching and even the friends of Jesus were embarrassed
by it, as still happens today (Matt. 15:1-14). Disciples of Jesus must be repeatedly warned to "take
heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matt. 16:6-12). Like leaven, false
doctrine works quietly, unnoticed, penetrating, spreading, affecting the whole lump. We may not notice its full
effects until it is too late. Jesus did not hesitate to identify by name popular religious sects, leaders, and
movements. We should warn people today of the danger posed by Catholicism, denominationalism, premillennialism,
institutionalism, and divorce-remarriage-ism, and identify by name those who promote such errors.
When Elymas perverted "the
right ways of the Lord," Paul openly exposed his use of subtle
arguments, reckless charges, and worldly wisdom (Acts 13:6-12). Paul did not focus on his own good motives or Elymas’ bad motives, but he dissected
the message of Elymas to show how he perverted the truth. This open contrast of truth and error converted Sergius
Paulus, giving us a model for dealing with false teachers today. Error arose among the saints when some taught
"it was needful...to keep the law of Moses" to be saved. These false teachers were met head-on in public debates. Again, the
focus was not on whether their character was good or bad, but on their teaching something for which the Apostles
"gave no such commandment"
(Acts 15:5, 24).
A general alarm was sounded throughout the churches. When dangerous doctrines arise today, false teachers and their
theories need to be exposed, debated, and warned against far and wide, rather than giving them immunity on the
basis of their good intentions. When Apollos taught error on baptism with the best intentions, Aquila and Priscilla
immediately "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" so that he might correct his false teaching (Acts
18:24-28). Had he not corrected it, sound brethren would have
sounded an alarm rather than writing a recommendation.
The church at Rome was to "mark" and "avoid" those who "cause divisions
and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned"
(Rom. 16 :17-18).
Since false doctrine does not originate with the Lord, we serve our own desires rather than the Lord by teaching
it. Both the speaker and his audience may be deceived by the power of "good
words and fair speeches"–"the smooth and plausible address
which simulates goodness" and "well chosen (but untrue) words" (Thayer, p. 671; Arndt and Gingrich,
p. 323). No matter how good the false teacher’s intentions may be, "those thus led away are trapped by false
doctrine either in teaching or in practice" (Clinton Hamilton, The
Book of Romans, p. 868).
Much of 1 Corinthians is devoted to fighting false teachers who rely on human wisdom
and eloquence rather than on the gospel in its original purity and simplicity (1
Cor. 2:1-5). Using Apollos and himself as examples, he urged the
Corinthians "not to think of men above that which is written"–we must be loyal to the truth, not to fallible men (1
Cor. 4:6).
False teachers may charge faithful brethren who expose and oppose them with being
dishonorable in character and in the methods of our work (2 Cor.
1:17; 7:2; 12:16). Paul said, rather than he, his opponents "corrupt the word of God"
or adulterate it with foreign elements (2:17). Paul openly preached the truth for the examination of all men and renounced the methods
of false teachers: "the hidden things of dishonesty" (underhanded maneuvers), "walking
in craftiness" (skillful, unscrupulous tactics), and "handling the word of God deceitfully"
(to adulterate or "corrupt with error;" A.T. Robertson, Word
Pictures of the New Testament, IV:224) (4:1-5). The Corinthians were warned not
to fall prey to the false teachers who use such methods to divert souls away from single-minded devotion to the
original gospel. However unwitting, such teachers are ministers of Satan preaching "another
gospel," no matter how much they appear to bring "light" and "righteousness" (11:2-4, 13-15). The Ephesians
likewise were urged to speak "the truth in love" and to not be deceived by false teachers’ artful maneuvers and sleight-of-hand
tactics in misusing the truth (Eph. 4:14-15).
Rather than maneuvering behind the scenes, making veiled insinuations, passing
rumors, impugning motives, offering undocumented personal charges, and avoiding direct discussion of Bible issues,
we need to state our convictions openly and subject them to the light of open debate for all to hear and read.
Honorable controversy is the friend of truth and the foe of error, which is why false teachers generally dread
it and avoid it with all craftiness. When open discussion can no longer be avoided, false teachers are prone to
charge their opponents with the tactics Paul condemned, while they themselves utilize such tactics before, during,
and after the discussion occurs.
The Galatians were charged to reject false teachers of every description and every
stripe, no matter how high and holy their claims and reputations might be. Men who change or "pervert the gospel of Christ"
bring "trouble,"
not new truth or deeper understanding of truth (Gal. 1:6-9). Paul was determined to make no concessions to them, "no not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (2:5).
Once Peter compromised with certain Judaizing teachers because of his high regard for their influence and his fear
of a possible confrontation with them. "Peter’s problem was one of conduct, not of doctrine. Peter believed
and preached the truth; however, he did not live up to what he knew was right" (Mike Willis, Galatians, p. 82). Paul fulfilled
a painful duty: In spite of Peter’s good character, Paul "withstood
him to the face" and rebuked him "before them all," charging he
"walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (2:11-14). Rather than attacking Paul’s character or motives, Peter accepted this stinging rebuke
with good grace, later referring to "our beloved brother Paul" (2 Pet. 3:15).
Today, we too face not only the challenge of false teachers, but also the difficult
duties imposed when otherwise good men compromise with such teachers in an effort to avoid unpleasant confrontations.
Such compromise must be exposed and opposed until it is corrected, the good character and worthy accomplishments
of the brother notwithstanding.
Paul shows us that false teaching, not bad motives, defines a false teacher. Some
"preach Christ of envy and strife," while others are moved by "good will" and "love," but Paul rejoiced in both cases because "Christ
is preached" (Phil.
1:15-18). Good motives do not nullify the poison in error and
bad motives do not nullify the saving power of truth. The truth preached by men of bad motives is still saving
truth. They are not false teachers, though their sinful motives will condemn them. The error taught by men of good
motives is still destructive error. They are false teachers, and their good motives will not save them. Before
being converted, Paul himself was "a blasphemer, and a persecutor,
and injurious" with a clear conscience (Acts 23:1; 1 Tim. 1:12-13).
It is easy to caricature all the Judaizers of Paul’s day as unprincipled thugs,
since we did not know them personally, but many were motivated by a zealous desire to serve God (Jn. 16:2; Rom. 10:1-3). Paul’s
severe language in opposing them must not be misread as base insults or character assassination. Judaizers viewed
Gentile Christians as dogs until circumcised and saw themselves as doing service to God by circumcising them. Paul
exposes their false doctrine by saying, "Beware of dogs, beware
of evil workers, beware of the concision" (Phil. 3:1-3). This reproaches
the Judaizers as the ones in error, identifies their practice as evil work rather than true service to God, and
exposes circumcision as mere mutilation of the flesh in the gospel age. Because of his intense love for the souls
Judaizers hoped to influence, Paul repeatedly warned that such teachers are "the
enemies of the cross of Christ"--their doctrine perverts
the gospel and causes souls to be lost. However sincere such teachers seem to be at times, they serve temporal
things rather than eternal realities (3:18-19).
The phrase "the man of sin" personifies all who teach doctrines contrary to the apostolic word as breeding
a lawless spirit of departure from the truth which destroys souls (2
Thess. 2:2-3, 10, 15). Insufficient love of truth results in a
"strong delusion"
that error is truth (2:10-12).
Paul often deals with these dangers in his letters to Timothy and Titus. Paul charged Timothy to recognize, fight,
and name false teachers such as Hymenaeus and Philetus who "made
shipwreck" of their faith (1
Tim. 1:18-20). The young preacher was to constantly warn that
"some shall depart from the faith" and teach "doctrines of devils" (4:1-5). False teachers are those who "teach
otherwise" than "the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ." Such men think they promote
"godliness,"
but their errors unwittingly spawn turmoil, "evil surmisings," "the love of money," and "many foolish and hurtful
lusts" (6:1-12). False doctrine offers knowledge "falsely
so called" contrary to "the
faith" (6:20-21).
Timothy must teach faithful brethren to properly use "the
word of truth," to shun false doctrine as blood poisoning
or gangrene, to know the names of false teachers ("Hymenaeus
and Philetus"), and to understand the content and consequences
of false doctrine (2 Tim. 2:15-18).
Sin and error work like a tide or a current, gradually pulling men further from the truth, causing them to "wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (3:13).
False teachers encourage critics of sound preaching and learn how to mix just enough truth with just enough error
to satisfy those who "will not endure sound doctrine" (4:1-5). "Vain talkers and deceivers" teach "commandments of men,
that turn from the truth," "whose mouths must be stopped,"
which may require sharp rebuke (Tit. 1:10-14). The "vain" words of Judaizers is heresy and makes heretics. After sufficient teaching, warning,
and admonishing, such men cannot plead ignorance but are self-condemned and are to be rejected (3:9-11).
2 Peter 2 and Jude give similar warnings. "The
way of truth," "the right way," "the way of righteousness," or "the holy commandment" suffer at the hands of false teachers (2
Pet. 2:1-2, 15, 21). Their doctrines are contrary to the original
teaching of both the Old and New Testaments, as these men twist the Scriptures "unto
their own destruction" (3:1-2,
16). They pervert the doctrine of God’s grace and undermine the
authority of Christ by teaching things contrary to "the faith" revealed in the Apostolic word (Jude 3, 17). The tragic consequence of such teaching was that both the teachers and the followers
were led into bondage to many sinful attitudes and "ungodly
deeds," including "hard
speeches" against the truth (Jude
15). We are to hate all forms of sin and error. We are to "earnestly contend for the faith,"
rescuing men from Satan’s clutches with conviction, courage, patience, and wisdom (Jude
3, 22-23).
Christ commended the Ephesian church for exposing "false
apostles," those who taught error and claimed divine authority
for it (Rev. 2:2).
False teachers and their followers at Smyrna are called the church or "synagogue
of Satan" (2:9). The church at Pergamos tolerated some who held false doctrines, one of which
Jesus sharply reproaches by calling it "the doctrine of Balaam," and he said he hated as well "the
doctrine of the Nicolaitanes," identifying it openly by its
party name. These doctrines loosened the restraints against immorality and false worship. Jesus demanded repentance,
or judgment would fall on the church "quickly" (2:14-16). Similarly, the church at Thyatira tolerated a professed prophetess, whom Christ stigmatized
as "that woman Jezebel,"
because her doctrine allowed "fornication" and false worship, all of which Jesus soundly rebuked (2:20-23). He will not compromise with sin
and error, and we must not.
God closed the Bible with a somber warning that we not "add to" or "take away from" the teaching
of His Word (22:18-19).
No matter how we judge the intentions or motive of one who does so, he is a false teacher and the Bible says he
is lost.
The passages surveyed teach vital lessons. As we fight the man of sin in his various
forms, we must educate people to the difference between truth and error. This requires open, public discussion
and debate from time to time. False doctrines should be specified, explained, and refuted. False teachers and their
parties should be named at times, simply described at times, and stigmatized by expressions of reproach at times.
When to use these various methods to stop the mouths of false teachers involves decisions of judgment and expediency.
Any man who constantly criticizes such scriptural efforts, who declares any part of such work outdated, or who
never finds the occasion to follow these Bible examples, simply manifests his unbelief in God’s pattern for dealing
with error. His failure to fulfill the duty of an evangelist constitutes compromise with the forces of sin and
error, allowing the leaven of error to work unnoticed, giving Satan great advantages, and leaving God’s people
blissfully ignorant and vulnerable to digression and apostasy. We should act not only with love, patience, courtesy,
and wisdom, but also with the unswerving determination to uproot and eradicate false doctrine, and to plant the
truth in the hearts of all people.
IV. The Epistles of John VS False Teachers
The Epistles of John give rich insight into the battle between truth and error.
Let us consider the following four points.
- John’s constant appeal is to the original teaching which has Jesus Christ
as its source and which he revealed through his Apostles. The person and teaching of Christ are one as "that which is from the beginning,"
"the word which ye have heard from the beginning," "him
which is from the beginning," and "that which ye have heard from the beginning" (1 Jn. 1:1; 2:7, 13, 24). The written word is repeatedly emphasized as the standard of truth and the basis
of our fellowship with God: "that which we have seen and heard
declare we unto you," "these things write we unto you," "this then is the message," the
light," "his word," "his commandments," "I write unto you," "I have written
unto you," "the will of God," etc. (1:3-5, 7, 10; 2:3, 12, 14, 17).
- John establishes and defends the full deity and full humanity of Jesus
Christ against the contrary claims of false teachers (2:21-22). When John calls the contrary doctrine a "lie" and the teacher "a liar," he is not attacking his opponents as moral reprobates but is attacking their doctrine
as devoid of truth. He said earlier his opponents "lie" by making inconsistent arguments (1:6). This verb means "‘to speak falsely’...though only the context and not the
term itself shows whether this is intentional or not" (Kittel, IX:595). John argues that it is inconsistent
to claim fellowship with God while not obeying him, thus if we make that claim, "we tell lies," "we
say what is false/untrue" (C. Hass, et.al., The Letters of
John, p. 26). John uses "black and white contrasts"
because "opposing views are not to him ‘complementary insights’ but ‘truth and error’" (J.R.W. Stott,
The Epistles of John,
p. 111). John’s test of the false teacher is purely doctrinal: If he denies "that
Jesus is the Christ," he is "a
liar" and "antichrist" and denies the Father also. The false teacher does not see or intend these consequences,
because his deceptive words seduce him as well as his followers, but John presses his arguments to demonstrate
the contrast between truth and error. By such an explicit doctrinal standard we can recognize "the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 Jn. 2:22; 4:1-6).
John does not ask that we x-ray the teacher’s innermost thoughts, intentions,
and motives, but simply that we test his doctrine by the standard of apostolic teaching. If he violates this standard,
also called "the doctrine of Christ," the teacher is a false teacher and we cannot receive him into our spiritual fellowship
as a faithful brother (2 Jn. 9-11).
- John refutes the claim that we can have fellowship with God while persisting
in sin. He proves that doctrine to be a lie by demonstrating it contradicts the original message of apostolic teaching
(1:5-6; 2:3-4).
It is not necessary to know the teacher’s state of mind or motive in order to declare his doctrine a lie, falsehood,
or error, and to identify him as a false teacher.
- In the midst of this doctrinal controversy, John emphasized the importance
of conducting ourselves with love for our brethren at all times. This too is "the
message that ye heard from the beginning" (3:11; 4:7-21). This reminder is
vital because false teachers become frantic when their errors are exposed, and they react and retaliate in unloving
ways. Sliding past the doctrinal issues, they accuse their brethren of being reckless, irresponsible, extremists,
dishonest, vicious watchdogs, assassins, vultures, dictators, creed-makers, partisans, slanderers, jingoists, ambitious
for a big name, intentional liars, gatherers of dirt files, headhunters, sharks, meddlers, charlatans, paranoid,
and the like. The alleged charges cannot be documented but their frequent repetition gives them credence, thus
tending to exonerate false teachers and compromisers while damaging the credibility of those who expose their error.
In the face of such tactics, we must genuinely love those who make such charges while continuing to focus on the
doctrinal issues before us.
V. Some Applications Today
Different Doctrines and Fellowship. This
study is occurring in the context of ongoing discussions of divorce and remarriage, and the implications for fellowship.
Those of us discussing the fellowship issue are united on God’s fundamental law for divorce and remarriage. We
agree God recognizes people as eligible to marry under three circumstances: if they have never been married (Matt. 19:4-6), if their mate is
dead (Rom. 7:2-3),
or if they have put away a mate for fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Our problem arose over whether it is scriptural to maintain ongoing fellowship
with those who teach a different doctrine, allowing divorced people who did not put away a mate for fornication
to marry new mates.
There are a number of advocates of a wider fellowship tolerant of brethren who
substitute new laws and rules for the one upon which we are united. According to this view, those who teach false
doctrines on divorce-remarriage should not be called "false teachers." Leroy Garrett has worked out the
implications of a broader fellowship for many years, nearly reaching universalism. He claims only "an unscrupulous
person" who "knows he’s a liar" is a false teacher. No "sincere, well-meaning, God-loving person,
however misled he may be," even if he is "caught up in...an insidious system," is a false teacher.
Not even "the nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the light" deserves "the
epithet false."
Billy Graham is not a false teacher, but any man who calls him one might be ("Who Is the False Teacher? Restoration Review, Apr. 1976,
pp. 262-65).
F. LeGard Smith, who went out from us years ago to pursue an ever-widening fellowship,
devotes a chapter of his book Who Is My Brother? to the thesis that Homer Hailey and others who teach false doctrines are not to
be identified as false teachers, unless proven to be of "ungodly character" (p. 204). Typical of those
pushing this view, Smith clouds the issue by suggesting that if we cannot tolerate different doctrines over "instruments"
in worship, institutionalism, or "divorce and remarriage," then we cannot tolerate different views over
"head coverings" (p. 200). This overlooks the difference between personal conscience issues and violations
of the doctrine of Christ (Rom. 14; 2 Jn. 9-11).
Ed Harrell denies Hailey and others who teach false doctrines on divorce-remarriage
are false teachers. "A false teacher is surely one whose dishonest motives and/or ignorance distinguish him
from the sincere brother who has reached an erroneous conclusion." He too urges tolerance of divorce-remarriage
error as equivalent to tolerance of different views on the head covering ("Homer Hailey: False Teacher? Christianity Magazine, Nov. 1988,
pp. 326-29). It is hard to see how Oral Roberts could be a false teacher by Ed’s rule because he judged him "to
be a sincere and honorable man" (Harrell, Oral Roberts: An
American Life, p. ix.).
Bob Owen discussed "fellowship" and "what is a false teacher"
in the context of "a series of discussions on the marriage question." He concluded just teaching the
"wrong" doctrine on divorce-remarriage does not qualify a person as a "false teacher." To qualify,
the teacher must have the ungodly character of 2 Peter 2 (Owen, Sermon on Fellowship, Sept. 2, 1993, Temple Terrace,
FL, Tape). Again, Owen said we cannot say of Hailey and others, "He is a false teacher of the Bible definition
of a false teacher....I differ with him on the issue of divorce and remarriage....But Homer Hailey is not a deceitful
worker....And those are the descriptions of the false teacher in 2 Peter 2." Owen added he agrees with Hailey’s
critics on divorce-remarriage, but differs with them "on their interpretation and application of the fellowship
issue" (Owen, Sermon on "We Differ, Can We Fellowship?" Feb. 19, 1995, Concord, NC, Tape).
W. Frank Walton said, "Hence, in the Biblical usage of the term, a sincere
brother who teaches error on some point is not a false teacher. Biblically, there is no such thing as a sincere,
honest false teacher. Rather, he is a mistaken teacher at that point." One must be proven to be "rotten
and rebellious" in disposition to be a false teacher ("The Divine Warrior, Overcoming
With the Lamb: 1994 Florida College Lectures, pp. 181-82).
Wallace H. Little explained, "What I am saying is that the identifying of
a false teacher is not by his false doctrine, but by his false character. As far as exposing his false teaching,
that is quite proper. As far as labeling him a false teacher because of his false teaching, is not [i.e., not proper,
RH] (Little, email to mars-list@frank.mtsu.edu, Sept. 10, 1999). After listing 28 characteristics of false teachers in 2 Peter
2, Little said, "I flatly deny such men as Don Bassett and his brother Jerry, E.L. Flannery, Homer Hailey,
Olan Hicks, Jim Puterbaugh, W.L. Wharton, and others who DIFFER
WITH ME on marriage-divorce-remarriage are false teachers!"
(Little, Position Paper on "Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage: Who Is a False Teacher," May 12, 1992)
Christianity Magazine was published
1984-99 and edited by Ed Harrell, Dee Bowman, Paul Earnhart, Sewell Hall, and Brent Lewis. This paper exemplified
the tolerant approach advocated by Harrell and others. It freely published articles throughout its history by authors
who teach theories allowing divorced people who did not put away a mate for fornication to marry new mates, contrary
to the fundamental law of God recognized by the editors. Among such authors were L.A. Mott, Don Givens, Rolf L.
Miller, Bill Fling, Don R. Wilson, Harold Dowdy, Darrell Hymel, Don Bassett, Jerry Bassett, and Homer Hailey. This
policy and practice continued through the very last issue of the paper.
In this way, the paper reflected and reinforced the widespread sentiment that men
teaching false doctrine on divorce-remarriage ought not be regarded as false teachers. As happened with Peter,
there is a spirit of tolerance, compromise, and acquiescence abroad, which shrinks back from the painful duty of
confronting error and false teachers head-on. Rather than giving these men avenues to increase the confidence level
of brethren in them, their false doctrines need to be confronted and rooted up that the truth of the gospel may
continue with us.
Same Doctrine, Differ in Some Detail. How
do we answer the argument that identifying false teachers on divorce-remarriage will lead to calling everyone a
false teacher who differs on any subject, or any detail of the process of divorce and remarriage? Many of the subjects
mentioned such as the head covering, funerals and weddings in the church building, the Sunday P.M. provision for
the Lord’s Supper, and military service have been properly resolved through the years by applying the principles
of Romans 14. This chapter provides a way for every person to keep his conscience clear on such matters, without
binding the conscience of others.
Part of spiritual maturity is learning to "approve
things that are excellent" or "distinguish
the things that differ," and to "let your moderation be known unto all men" (Phil. 1:10; 4:5). We are to recognize
that some choices involve relative wisdom rather than absolute right or wrong. In such matters we should be guided
by moderation, forbearance, gentleness, and reasonableness. Differences over details in what is said while baptizing
someone are not equivalent to someone advocating sprinkling. Differences over details in serving the Lord’s Supper
on the Lord’s Day are not equivalent to someone advocating another day. Differences over details in the process
of divorce and remarriage among those who recognize the same fundamental law are not equivalent to someone advocating
that all divorced persons can marry new mates no matter why they divorced.
The following questions are discussed by brethren adhering to the same fundamental
law (only someone who puts away a mate for fornication can marry a new mate). How shall we view a case where a
marriage is annulled for an underage couple? If a man free to marry enters an unscriptural marriage and gets out,
can he marry later? What legal steps can a woman take to protect herself and the children if endangered by her
husband (get out of house, file for temporary separation until safe to return, etc.)? After a divorce for fornication,
can the original mates reconcile? May a put-away fornicator remarry after the first mate dies? If a man leaves
his wife for no Bible reason over her protest to marry another, does his adultery give her the ground to appeal
to God to dissolve her marriage bond? In a divorce for fornication, does it matter who initiates the legal action?
If the fornicator sues for divorce, must the innocent party countersue?
Such questions are discussed by brethren all of whom appeal to the same fundamental
law given by Christ, whereas false teachers contradict that law and substitute another law (such as all divorced
people can take new mates; adultery is non-sexual covenant breaking) (Matt.
19:9). All brethren discussing such questions adhere to principles
of Bible authority by appealing to positive divine authority, not to the silence of Scripture, but false teachers
undermine Bible authority by appealing to silence and the absence of specific prohibitions (1 Pet. 4:11). The different views held
on the details of the divorce-remarriage process do not breed looseness on other moral and doctrinal issues, but
the errors of false teachers breed precisely that kind of looseness (2
Tim. 2:16; 3:13). While faithful brethren are open to study and
discussion of disputed details, false teachers want a license to teach their theories with immunity from open examination
and they cannot tolerate preaching which challenges their errors (Acts
17:11; 2 Tim. 4:1-5).
We have shown the objection is not valid that identifying false doctrines and false
teachers on divorce-remarriage will lead to abusive labeling and endless division among faithful brethren.
"There shall be false teachers among you" (2 Pet. 2:2). That is without question and has always been true in the great war between God
and Satan for the souls of men. The only question is whether we will follow scriptural principles and imperatives
in confronting the false teachers who arise from time to time.
|
