Larry Dixon is a graduate of Emmaus Bible College and Professor of Church History and Theology at Columbia International University Seminary and School of Missions. He is the author of numerous publications and is a frequent speaker at various assemblies and Bible conferences. Larry has taught at Emmaus as an adjunct faculty member.
“The whole world is saved—They just don’t know it!” (Bishop Carlton Pearson)
“Heaven can be heaven only when it has emptied hell.” (Nels F. S. Ferre)
“I believe Jesus had a special relationship with God and an important role in human history, though I’m no longer persuaded this required his divinity. I’m committed to living the way of Jesus, though I no longer insist ‘there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.’” (Philip Gulley)Introduction
In this series of articles we will explore such topics as the meaning of the term “heresy,” how heresy originates, how we should respond to heresy, how we can prevent heretical teaching from poisoning our churches, etc. We want to be like the apostle Paul and not allow false teachers to remain anonymous, so we will be quoting and identifying those whose teachings stand in contrast to the major doctrines of Christianity.
Our culture, which staunchly defends the First Amendment’s right of free speech, is not comfortable with the term “heresy” or any efforts to suppress, critique, or condemn heterodoxy (a term which means that which is other than orthodoxy). To silence, persecute, chastise, or otherwise respond negatively to those we perceive to be teaching false doctrine is considered by some to be the greatest form of mistreatment.
This series of articles is not a call to re-engage the church in Inquisition-like heresy trials, burning at the stake, or aggressive efforts at excommunication. However, if there is such a thing as heresy, and if heresy is damaging to the church and to its gospel witness (as it certainly is), Christians who take the Bible seriously need to respond biblically to those who set forth “contrary doctrine.”
Three Working Assumptions
There are three working assumptions in these articles with which the reader ought to be aware.
- First, I am assuming The functional authority of the Scriptures, by which I mean that the Bible is God’s Word and, properly interpreted, is the judge of all the thoughts and intentions of man’s heart—and of his head.
- Second, I am assuming that there is great confusion about the essentials versus the distinctives of the Christian faith. Is it a heresy to deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it a heresy to hold to a post-tribulational view of the rapture? Must the celebration of the Lord’s Supper precede the 11 am worship service? My point is that we need to see the fact that not all doctrines are first-level doctrines. A denial of the deity of Jesus is much more serious than a difference of opinion about whether the elders in a local church should be publically identified or how many elders there ought to be. If we make every doctrinal belief an essential, then we are assuming that all doctrines are disclosed in the Word of God with an equal level of clarity and that there is no room for polite disagreement among the people of God about a variety of issues. If every doctrinal belief is an essential, then those who disagree with me necessarily must be designated as heretics.
- A third assumption is that doctrinal truth has consequences. We will see that the heresies described on the pages of the New Testament had practical implications for the church. As the TV game-show host of yesteryear Bob Barker might put it, “Truth has Consequences!” We must give equal diligence to standing for the truth of Scripture as we give to identifying heresies and their propagators.
The Use Of The Term “Heresy” In The Scriptures
The Greek term αἵρεσις (hairesis) is strictly translated as “choice” or “option.” It is used of a separatist group characterized by loyalty to a certain school of thought and practice, a sect, party, or school (as in Acts 5:17). Paul employs the term in 1 Corinthians 11:19 to refer to such separatist groups which claim status within the Christian community and are, in reality, a heretical sect, party, or division. The term can also be used in a religious sense to refer to belief contrary to established doctrine. It is rightly translated “heresy” or “false teaching” (as we will see in 2 Peter 2:1). The term itself is used in simple or compound form sixteen times in the NT. [1]
A brief survey of the NT use of the term reveals the following: In Acts 5:17 we read about the “party” of the Sadducees, in Acts 15:5 of the “party” of the Pharisees, and in Acts 24:5 about the “sect” of the Nazarenes. Paul is aware of the use of this word to describe Christians, for he admits before Governor Felix that he belongs to “the Way, which they call a sect” (Acts 24:14). Before King Agrippa Paul acknowledges that he had lived as a Pharisee “according to the strictest party of our religion” (Acts 26:5). In defending himself before the Jews at Rome, Paul is asked to defend “this sect” (Acts 28:22).
One might ask at this point, why are we surprised when we are treated as a “sect,” a renegade “faction” of the status quo? Jesus said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matt. 10:34-35). Jesus Christ does bring division, a taking of sides, even to the disruption of close family ties. We should not be surprised that the present world spirit accuses Christians of being divisive and sectarian. To belong to the “sect” of Jesus-followers will bring a price. Jesus warned his followers that dividing ourselves from others will not result in the praise of men (Matt. 5:11; Luke 21:12; John 15:20), but rather in their opposition.
The term αἱρεσις, hairesis is also used to refer to the factions among the believers in Corinth. Paul writes:
In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions [σχίσματα, schismata] among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences [αἱρέσεις, haireseis] among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Cor. 11:17-19).The counter play here between σχίσματα, schismata (schisms) and αἱρέσεις, haireseis (sects/divisions) is quite interesting. The former term has a negative connotation here; the latter less so.
In the next chapter of 1 Corinthians, the term διαίρεσις, dihairesis is used to describe the “varieties” of gifts, the “varieties” of service, and the “varieties” of working in the body of Christ (14:4, 5, 6). We must remind ourselves that God enjoys variety! As the great theologian Steve Taylor says, “God is not in the cloning business.” Variety does not equal heresy. Our local churches should provide opportunities for charitable differences of opinion on the non-essential issues of the Christian life and for varieties of gifts in serving the body.
A compound form of the word (ἀναίρεσις, anhairesis) is used in Acts 8:1 where we read that Saul was consenting to his (Stephen’s) “death” (literally, his “taking up or away”). A different compound form of this word (καθαίρεσις, kathairesis) is used in 2 Corinthians 10:4, where Paul says that “the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds.” The same compound form of the word is used in 2 Corinthians 10:8, where Paul says, “For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame.” Paul emphasizes in 2 Corinthians 13:10 that the Lord gave him authority for building the believers up, not for tearing them down.
The last two uses of αἱρεσις, hairesis occur in Galatians 5:20 and in 2 Peter 2:1. In Galatians 5:20 Paul lists the sins of the flesh which include “idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, [and a] party spirit.” Believers in Jesus can easily develop a “party spirit,” which needlessly divides the family of God. One is reminded of the story of David Lloyd-George, the former Prime Minister of England, who belonged to a small independent church which was going through a doctrinal squabble. He stated, “The church I belong to is in a fierce dispute. One faction says that baptism is in the name of Christ, and the other that it is into the name of Christ. I belong to one of these parties. I feel most strongly about it. I would die for it, in fact. But I forget which one it is.”
In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter tells us, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” Notice that false prophets and false teachers do not only come from outside the Christian congregation, but frequently from inside it. The apostle Paul says to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:29-31a). Is it not the case that sometimes the most vigorous—and virulent—opponents of the authority of the Scriptures, the exclusivity of the Christian gospel, the reality of eternal lostness, and other doctrines, are the “sons of the church”? Particularly in the last few years theological betrayal and treason have reared their ugly heads among those who grew up in evangelical families and were educated in vital evangelical institutions.
Summary And An Insight From The World Of Marketing
We have seen that the term αἵρεσις, hairesis is used is several different ways in the Scriptures. Used positively, it may simply mean “choice” or “variety.” Used negatively, it refers to a “sect” or a “party” or a “faction.” Some divisions are inevitable; others indicate a departure from biblical truth.
One researcher, Dr. Barry Schwartz, has argued that we have too many choices in our western culture. His book is entitled The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Although his study is primarily on the impact of too many choices on consumer behavior, [2] he raises some good questions for our study. He challenges the mantra that more freedom constitutes more well-being and that to increase freedom we need to increase choice, which leads us to assume that more choices always increases well-being.
The dark side of too many choices, Schwartz says, includes the following:
- Paralysis: There may be so many options that one ends up not making a choice at all.
- Decision quality: Faced with too many choices, we do not use difficult criteria to decide, but choose on the basis of what is most simple.
- Decision satisfaction: Even when people have chosen well, they are dissatisfied with their results. Failing to examine all options thoroughly, one might assume that one or more might have been better.
- Escalation of expectations: The availability of many choices increases expectations. Schwartz argues that when things were worse (less choices), it was easier to exceed expectations. There are no pleasant surprises left, he says.
- Maximizer impact: Too many choices is an issue for people whose aim in life is to get the best (maximizers). How does one know if he/she has gotten the best? Schwartz says that one would actually need to look at every possibility by making an exhaustive search and that there is virtually no area where maximizing makes sense.
- Leakage: The conditions present when people make a choice do not stop exerting influence after a choice has been made. People are less satisfied due to regret or missed opportunities, and this dissatisfaction extends after the choice to the actual experience.
- Satisficing: Selecting a “good enough” option (instead of maximizing) helps cut through the problem of choice.
- Principal Agent Distinction: To stop the leakage of dissatisfaction of choice onto experience, we can separate the consumer from the decider. For example, someone or something makes the choice for you.
- Libertarian Paternalism: pay attention to what happens when people do nothing. Defaults can be put in place that serve the interests of most people. For example, 90 percent of Americans approve of organ donation but only 25 percent are organ donors. In some European countries, 90 percent are donors. There the sign-up form is an opt-out instead of an opt-in. The difference in default has a huge impact.
- Capability vs. Usability: people don’t know what’s good for them. They prefer to have CD players with twenty-one features to ones with seven. But if they first use the twenty-one feature player for a while, they will prefer the seven feature one.
Conclusion
God has given us choices. The “sweet spot on the curve” is to believe what the Word of God clearly teaches, recognizing our tendency to go our way instead of God’s, especially in matters of truth. There are—and ought to be—consequences to wrongly chosen teachings that contradict God’s Word. Those who proclaim heretical views should be held accountable. Not all choices are equally valid or true or worthy. We will look at several classic heretics and their false teachings in our next installment.
Notes
- The word αἵρεσις occurs nine times. In addition there are the compound forms ἀναίρεσις (1x), διαίρεσις (3x), and καθαίρεσις (3x).
- He noted that we have lots of choices. In a typical grocery store, you’ll find 285 varieties of cookies, 75 iced teas, 175 salad dressings, 40 toothpastes, 230 soups, and 275 cereals. He discovered that there are 6.5 million possible stereo systems available at Circuit City.
No comments:
Post a Comment