As he has presented the concept of heretical teaching in his lates series, Dan has made an excellent distinction between “bad” teaching and “false” teaching. Whereas “false” teaching is a deliberate and blatant misrepresentation of the truth, having its roots in false theology, “bad” teaching (not just the kind that bores you to tears), is more a result of ignorance or sloppy theology.
I have, in my career as a Christian teacher, been guilty of both of these kinds of teaching. I’ve been “bad” (yes, I have bored people to tears–or sleep). I can recall, in a lesson on the problem of evil, I taught to a room full of adults that God cannot stop the evil that men purpose in their hearts to do. I taught that this is why we can maintain that God is free from evil intent. I maintained that if God were to intervene in any way, then God would either be guilty of evil intent or He would be a sinful violator of Man’s sovereign will. Was this wrong? Yes. Was this bad teaching? Absolutely. Was it based on ignorance? Yes. Was it FALSE teaching? I don’t think so. I was simply regurgitating what had been taught to me in college. I never seriously thought it through. At that stage in my walk with Christ, I doubt if I had the ability to really understand the implications of my position.
It wasn’t long after that when I was confronted with “good” teaching—”true” teaching. Like Apollos, I needed someone to teach me the way of Christ more adequately (Acts 18:26).
Often times, we see “bad” teaching and we confuse it with “false” teaching. We treat the “bad” teacher like a “false” teacher. This is simply wrong. We are to gently correct (reprove, rebuke) and take heed lest we ourselves fall into sin. Usually, when you push a strong person, their first reflex is to resist and to even push back. Teachers are usually strong people. If you confront teachers in a “pushy” way, you will find yourself in a confrontation. Love covers a multitude of sin (your own in particular). What more loving example can you find than that of Priscilla and Aquila gently correcting Apollos (in private!).
I pray for the same kind of finesse in discerning the difference between “bad” teaching and “false” teaching.
God bless.
Your teaching has never bored me, Ken.
Yeah, if fact I eagerly await your next blog post – but they seem to be quite rare. 😉
Is there a difference between bad teaching out of ignorance and bad teaching our of laziness?
Teachers are told to take their job seriously (1 Tim 4:16). If one was to basically ignore their job as teacher (not preparing, looking into issues, etc.) and taught something heretical would they be accused of “bad” teaching or “false” teaching?
By the way, I can relate to the “bad” teaching – on both levels. I have had classes where I am sure the students were just watching the clock ready to leave. I have also (very early in my Christian life) taught that “natives” on islands who have never heard about Christ were saved by works instead of grace. Ugh… Graciously, I think most of those same students were able to either hear the truth at a later date.
Rob and David,
Thanks.
Matt,
Good question. I’d have to say laziness is a sin but not necessarily heresy. I think heresy arises out of an incorrect view of justification and it is “cemented” by an unwillingness to turn from the error when confronted by truth.
Can you think of any doctrine you would categorize as false (heretical) that focuses on something other than justification? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
By the way…In the church where I used to be a member, I have been labeled by some as a heretic because I have a view of justification which is, to them, unbiblical. In this case, color me heretical.
I would consider doctrines that deny the trinity to definitely be heretical. Also any doctrine that denied the humanity of Christ. Certain views of the inspiration and infalibility of Scripture could also fall under that category.
What about things like complete sanctification (where you reach a point where you will never sin again)? Or even those who believe that God doesn’t know the ultimate future (open theists)?
It is very hard to draw the line between heresy and something that Christians can openly and comfortably disagree over. How do we draw the lines between heresy and “wrong”?
I would limit my categories of “heresy” to those theologies which deny the incarnation. I’m not as comfortable in drawing my lines against such doctrines as modalism (i.e. referring to T.D. Jakes as a “false teacher”).
I wouldn’t consider Complete Sanctification, Keswick Teaching, or Quietism to be “false” teaching unless the teachers of these systems were to begin to deny God’s perseverence with the saints which would indicate a disbelief in the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone.
On Open Theology, the jury is still out. I went to a conference once where R.C. Sproul referred to Clark Pinnock as a “false” teacher and John Piper publicly took R.C. to task just a few minutes later.
I am compelled by some of the teaching of William Lane Craig where he “sounds” like an OT adherant. I don’t agree with him but I think he makes some good points to ponder.
Again, I’d say that heresy is inextricably tied to the doctrine of justification.
I think the definition of heresy is teaching something that is wrong about God. In that case many, many people should be brought up as heretics.
The problem is that many of the teachings are not clear enough for us to say that their interpretation is “definitely” wrong. This is both one of the advantages and one of the disadvantages of Protestanism. We have the freedom to look at the Scriptures and question historical doctrines, BUT unlike the Catholics we do not have a set standard with which we can judge other people’s interpretations.
Most of what was considered heretical in the history of the church comes from a Catholic point of view which had their set “truths” and if you went against them then it must be heresy. The few cases of accusing others of heresy that I can think of involving the Reformers all involved Anabaptists who even many Reformers wanted punished for their beliefs about baptism.
I just don’t want to narrow it to justification without some clear guidance from Scripture that this is the only “false” teaching that we declare heretical. It wasn’t in the past (though that was Catholic) so why should it be now? Also, what would our churches look like today if the churches hadn’t taken stronger stands in the past for orthodoxy?
Matt,
I don’t want to be too “liberal” either! What I’m trying to do is base my determinations of what is heretical on the precedents that I read in the NT.
It seems to me that Paul reserved his harshest condemnation for those Judaizers who perverted the gospel (Galatians). John categorized the incipient gnostics with such as well (1 & 2 John).
Both of these brands of teaching denied the essentials of justification by grace through faith in Christ’s bodily sacrifice.
So let’s suppose we’ve identified a particular heretical position on justification.
If that heretical position is a logical consequence of a set of false beliefs about God, are those false beliefs not heretical? Or is it a sort of “in context” thing?
I’d leave it to “context” in at least two ways:
1. Is this an institutionalized teaching (such as a council decision, statement of faith, etc.)? If so, then if these beliefs lead to heretical doctrines regarding justification, then I’d say the entire system is “false teaching” because the system is used to bolster false doctrine.
The best example I can think of is the RC doctrine of infused grace/baptismal regeneration. These doctrines, in my opinion, were backed into because of a false view of justification.
2. Is the individual teacher open to examine his/her conclusions? Have they ever revised their theological positions? On what basis did they do so? (Keep in mind that this only applies to those teachings which have demonstrably led to false doctrines about justification).
After reading the post here, I would like to point out that I do not believe you only are heretical if your doctrine leads to false beliefs about justification. This is very onesided and misleading. I do not believe anybody can be saved by understanding justification. I know athiest that understand what a we mean by justification by Christ works alone. Does that make them saved. And again, you must understand that you still must “repent and believe”, does this mean that a person that repents and believe as Christ Himself instructed is not trusting in the work of Christ alone. No, I tell you the fact that they did repent and believe is complete evidence that they ARE trusting in the work of Christ alone. Please do not narrow justification down to someones understanding of all these high minded things. Just repent and beleive.
Hello Marqui,
This is a very old thread (dates back to April ’05).
Thanks for your input.
I don’t think anyone here believes that proper understanding of a particular doctrine has the power to save them.
However, improper understanding of a particular doctrine can, in fact, show that one stands condemned.
By the way, repent and believe what?