'False teaching'—How to Biblically define it

[PrisonerOfHope]

'False teaching'—How to Biblically define it

RELIGIOUSLYINCORRECT.org
Every Christian—without question—should have a clear understanding of what "false teaching" is.



Why?

Because believing it will have eternally disastrous consequences—as the Bible indicates (more on this later).

Since this is the case, then every Christian should also clearly understand how to identify a false teacher.

Obviously, the false teacher is the one propagating the false doctrine—and is therefore costing people their souls.

In fact, the Bible refers to false teachers as advancing a message as deadly as "gangrene"—which, in Biblical days, was almost certainly fatal. In other words, buying in to false teaching will likely result in spiritual fatality.


Misidentifying a false teacher

We can't afford to misidentify false teachers.

On one hand, ignoring an actual false teacher will likely be fatal, as mentioned.

But on the other hand, if you consider someone a "false teacher" who isn't, and deal with him/her as the Bible commands, you may be condemning a true Christian—also a serious mistake. The "if in doubt, throw them out" policy some traditionalists use is certainly not the will of God.

Remember, Jesus said that the way we treat His people is the way we treat Him—in His eyes. In other words, Jesus takes it personally if we cast off or ostracize one of His people (Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 9:4).

So, getting this right is really important.

But how do we do that?

Simply by arming ourselves with sufficient Biblical knowledge to understand what "Biblically defined" false teaching is, and knowledge of exactly HOW God commands us to deal collectively with "false teachers" (yes, it's a congregational effort, not just an individual one, in spite of the way it's often handled).

This article will by no means be comprehensive, but hopefully it will be informative enough to help us in making Christ-approved evaluations.


A mistake doesn't make one a false teacher

It's important to note that not everyone who teaches something wrong is a Biblically-defined "false teacher."

Otherwise, we'd all be excommunicated, for, as James said (3:1), we teachers all make many mistakes in what we say.

In other words, accidental mistakes or "small" blunders and misunderstandings are to be dealt with differently than something on the scale of a "Biblically-defined" false teaching (explanation forthcoming).

Reasonable latitude, I believe, should also be given for various views of complex prophecy (e.g., Revelation)—provided those interpretations don't conflict with plain Biblical teachings elsewhere, and are identified as conjecture and men's opinions when they are.


"Soft love" and "tough love"

As you undoubtedly know, Christ wants us to demonstrate love, kindness, and respect to everyone we meet ("soft love").

But there are also times when Christ wants us to demonstrate so-called "tough love." Perhaps that's like sending a drug-addicted, prison-bound son to a "cellphoneless" Nevada boot camp in order to get his attention—after all other reasonable options have failed, that is. You still love him, but he's on a fast track to disaster if you don't do something more severe.

In the Bible, "tough love" is definitely described many times. Typically, God seems to start by showing us "soft love." For example, we have so many blessings to be thankful for—blessings we don't deserve from God!

But when we make serious mistakes or show a persistent lack of wisdom, we sometimes receive God's "tough love."

For example, the Bible teaches that God "disciplines" (or "chastens") those He loves, and describes it as being an unpleasant experience designed to help us grow (Hebrews 12:5-11).

This "tough love" should not be confused with the wrath and fury of God, which will be coming upon people who fail to repent and turn to Him. At that point, the grace of God has expired (Mark 9:48). And it is a fearful thing to fall into His hands.

So clearly, "tough love" is a Biblical concept.

But when should our "soft love" turn to "tough love" toward a fellow Christian believer?


6 quick examples of "tough love" in the Bible

The Bible provides several helpful examples of Christian men who were to receive so-called tough love from the church. In the following cases, unless they repented, such men were to be disassociated from (or, if you will, handled with "tough love"):

(1) Christians who caused divisions (Rom 16:16-17).

(2) Christians who did not provide for their own daily necessities were to be disaccociated from, although they were to still be regarded as brothers (2 Thess 3:6-15).

(3) Christians who were sexually immoral were to be disassociated from, as well as the "greedy, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and swindlers" (1 Cor 5:9-11).

(4) Christians who sinned against others and didn't repent after sufficient warnings (Matt 20:15-20).

(5) Christians who taught that Jesus had not come in the flesh were called "false prophets" (1 Jn 4:1-3).

(6) And finally, Christians who tried to argue that the resurrection had already taken place were to be considered "bad company," and their teaching was compared to the deadly bacteria of gangrene, which spreads through a person's body and can be fatal (2 Tim 2:17-18; 1 Cor 15:20-33).


What guidelines can we draw from all these examples of "Biblical tough love"

These 6 examples of tough love may not be identical situations, but there are some common themes in each of them that we would be wise to notice.

First, they all deal with basic Christianity—"Christian Living and Learning 101" issues, if you will. Look again at the above 6 points: they deal with moral living, basic Christian conduct, and basic Christian teachings such as (but not limited to—more on this in a moment) the resurrection from the dead, and the obvious fact Jesus came in the flesh. Clear, "can't-get-this-wrong" type teachings that the illogical and corrupted minds of false teachers were getting wrong. In other words, getting these things wrong, either in life or in teaching, and teaching such to others (either by influence or by word of mouth), was akin to changing the foundational principles of the Holy Spirit. Please note: The Bible listed what God considers "basic teaching" in Hebrews 6, but I believe that, plainly, "anything like" these would also qualify. Getting foundational Biblical teachings correct is crucial—for if you don't, everything you build upon them will be suspect.

Second, in each above case, I believe disassociation from the Christian involved was required. Why such "extreme measures?" Because, in each above case, the sinning Christian's soul was in extreme danger. If you don't understand this, you won't have the right attitude toward the person involved. In other words, you MUST understand that these are in fact "salvation issues."

But why the need to disassociate from such Christians? Paul gave two reasons in example #3 above: (1) So that the behavior or teaching would not spread to the rest of the church and endanger them as well, and, (2) So that the person involved would wake up to the extreme danger his soul was in (again, much like sending a son to boot camp as a final "resort").

Please also look again at point #6 above. The Bible describes this false teaching (about the resurrection) to be like the deadly bacteria of gangrene, which, if unchecked, could spread to the rest of the church. Amputation or death of the body were probably the only two options for gangrene in Paul's day. That's as serious as it gets so far as church issues are concerned. The Holy Spirit made it clear: If disassociation from the false teacher does not occur—his teaching will certainly, over time (like gangrene), be spreading. And we will therefore be responsible for the loss of other souls. Furthermore, wrongly assuming his false teaching "isn't a salvation issue"—and thus continuing association with him—is dangerously naive. Such a disastrous oversight will result in the loss of other souls as well.

No wonder Christians are strictly forbidden to assist such people in their ministries, thereby helping to give legs to a dangerous situation (see example #5 above). And, no wonder several churches of Revelation 2 & 3 were commended by Christ for standing up against false teachers.

You can likely see why the Holy Spirit warned us to "be on guard" against such Christians, to "not be deceived," "to watch our lives and doctrines closely,"—and to "not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings."

Is this not where the false prophets of Israel went so tragically wrong, and how Israel eventually ended up being destroyed? Israel's "shepherds" were simply NOT doing their jobs.

How are modern church leaders any different when they treat casually such critical situations?


What about "similar cases"—should they be ignored?

As noted in example #6 above, Christians are to consider "bad company" those who teach the resurrection has already happened.

But what about "similar" cases—such as people who teach the final judgment has already happened, the 2nd coming of Christ has already happened, and so forth?

Are they to be treated differently because they haven't taught the specific doctrine that "the resurrection has already happened?"

The answer is unequivocally "yes."

In Hebrews 13:9 the Bible says: "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." [ASV: "varied and strange teachings"]

Thus, we see that God is displeased with ALL types of strange teachings, not just those relating to the resurrection.

link

[PrisonerOfHope]

'False teaching'—How to Biblically define it



CONCLUSION
As mentioned in part 1 of this series, it's crucial that every Christian have a clear understanding of how to identify both "false teaching" and the "false teachers" who propagate spiritually destructive messages.

That's because failure to do so will have eternally disastrous consequences.

It's also important that we not misidentify someone who isn't a false teacher, and that we know exactly how God wants us to proceed with those who actually are false teachers.

This article concludes this series.

Please click here for part 1 of this series.


What if the false teacher still seems to be living a 'good' life?

One thing I've noticed is that sometimes church leaders try to add more conditions to what would qualify a person as a "false teacher."

For example—in order to be "disfellowshipped" (i.e., "disassociated from")—not only must a false teacher's doctrine be Biblically wrong, his life must be immoral as well.

In other words, if he's "just a false teacher"—but still in other areas seems to be moral and church-devoted—he's to be associated with as any other brother or sister in Christ (they ignore the fact that teaching false doctrine is plainly NOT "living a good moral life.")

Nothing could be further from the truth.


A quick example. You may recall (see example #6 above) that Paul spoke of men who were teaching that the "resurrection had already come" (like men who teach the 70 AD doctrine—see 2 Timothy 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 15:20-33).

The question could be asked: "What SPECIFICALLY did the Holy Spirit condemn about these false teachers?"

That they "no longer had faith in Jesus?" That they "weren't submitting to Him as Lord in their daily living?" That they "weren't going to church?" That they "weren't convicted about the church?" That they were "causing division" by their teaching? That they were "not living a moral life in addition to their false teaching?" Etc, etc.

No. While some of these matters could plainly also require a tough love approach, this is NOT what the Holy Spirit specifically mentioned as problematic in point #6 above (and other Biblical instances).

Paul simply condemned the false doctrine itself—nothing more and nothing less. This is very, very important to understand in our "unity in diversity" slanted religious world. Pure doctrine really is a salvation issue with God—not just living a moral life.

(By the way, false prophets of the Old Testament were condemned based ONLY on their teaching—nothing more and nothing less. See Deut 18:19-22—chilling words to those who take lightly the teachings of false prophets!)

By the way, a case could certainly be made that false teachers are also immoral. They are deceiving others, lying (to themselves and to others), misleading Christians, badly abusing the words of God, etc. These are certainly "moral issues."

And "how sincere a false teacher is" is not of consequence. See again Deut 18:19-22: false teachers were condemned based on the misleading effects of their false message alone, whether or not they were sincere about what they believed. Indeed, many false teachers are very sincere, for they long ago came to believe a lie (2 Thess 2:11).


False teachers must be warned before being "disfellowshipped"

If you'll take another look at the above 6 examples of Biblical disassociation, and compare that with your other Biblical studies, I believe you'll agree that sufficient warning is certainly necessary before disfellowshipping a brother (see especially examples #1 through #4).

Many people never take the time to refute, prove false, and then inform the false teacher—so as to make him aware of his dangerous condition and give him time to repent. Instead, they simply start giving him "the left hand of fellowship," or "cold shoulder."

In so doing, they are also in violation of the will of God. I believe many Christians react this way because they haven't taken the time to gain proper Biblical knowledge. Therefore, anything disagreeing with their "traditional thinking" they oppose. But lacking logical Biblical backing or adequate knowledge for their opposition, all they can do is simply distance themselves from the "doctrinally-incorrect" brother. Sometimes his congregation is actually removed from church directories with no proper Biblical procedure having ever taken place. I believe people will be held accountable for these actions, which are FAR too common these days.

Of course, appropriate representatives (e.g., church leaders, if applicable) should be involved in the refuting of false doctrine and warning false teachers.

Also, in the spirit of Biblical teachings on so-called "tough love," I believe at least two clear warnings should be delivered to false teachers, with reasonable time for repentance.

However, time is also of the essence; if a false teacher is firmly entrenched in his teaching (which is very common), it is irresponsible and naive for church leaders to allow him more time to infect others with his teaching.


What if the false teacher doesn't teach his doctrine from the pulpit?

Suppose a false teacher spreads his doctrine privately, but not by the pulpit. Is he still to be considered a "false teacher?"

If you'll look closely at the examples of false teaching in the Bible, the mode of the false teaching is never mentioned. For example, the Bible never suggests false teaching must be in front of a congregation or it doesn't qualify. Indeed, the Bible commands the older women to teach the younger women. This would be an impossible command if they were not permitted to do it privately. We also know that private teaching was an important part of the transmission of the gospel to the lost.

Obviously, the same applies to false teaching. Any teaching that is false is "false teaching." It can be done publicly from the pulpit. It can be done in a private study. It can be done by sending emails. It can be done by posting pages to the web. If "teaching" can be done using a certain approach, that teaching can also be "false teaching."

The Bible clearly says the false teachers would "secretly introduce destructive heresies" (2 Pet 2:1). It is naive to believe that unless a false doctrine is promoted from the pulpit, that the teacher involved is not a false teacher.

Remember too that Jesus said that people speak from the "overflow of their hearts"— meaning, in part, that a person who truly believes something will also eventually share it. After all, that's how we came to know what they believed in the first place.


Never forgetting Who we're trying to please...

Our goal, obviously, is to please our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in all we do.

It's ridiculous to call Jesus "Lord" and then fail to do what He says when the going gets a little uncomfortable. That's not true faith.

So, when it comes to the "fellowship" issue, we neither want to not associate with those who should be considered faithful brothers—nor should we associate those God would want us to "disassociate from."

Neither scenario is obeying the Lord's will. We should never forget that in our zeal to show "love" to a false teacher, we also need to be showing "love" to our Lord.

And how is that done? By obeying His commands and following His intended guidelines—and those of the Holy Spirit He endorsed (John 14:15).

link