01.09. Chapter 09 - Heresy
Chapter 09
Heresy
We now come to the formidable word heresy. There is not much difficulty in what Scripture says about it; the difficulty is in the meaning that men have given it. The Greek word for heresy often is translated ’sect’ in the King James Version of the Bible: the sect of the Pharisees, Sadducees (Acts 5:17; Acts 15:5) gives the general thought. These were not divisions in the sense of separations from Judaism, but were doctrinal parties in Judaism. When Paul speaks of having “after the strictest sect of our religion, lived a Pharisee“ (Acts 26:5), he acknowledges other sects of his religion and certainly would not have used the word in an offensive way. The impossibility of using the word in these cases as something offensive, shows how little our modern idea of it can be taken as the idea of the New Testament. Christianity was looked at, in its beginning, as a similar sect — the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). At that time, Christians were not as yet fully separated from the Jewish worship.
Thus, when the apostle Paul before Felix confesses that “after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers” (Acts 24:14), we must not put unscriptural thoughts into it. The Jews would have used the same word for the parties to which they themselves belonged, and that was the force of the word — literally a choice or an adherence. Those who used the word did not mean to decide by it as to right or wrong, but simply to classify as different the existing schools of thought or doctrine. The apostle resented the term heresy as applying to Christianity because it ignored the divine revelation given in Christianity and characterized it as a mere human choice — an opinion. On the other hand, Paul could not resent the implication that Christianity was a system of doctrines, which it is and is intended to be, claiming men’s adherence and gathering disciples. The apostle asserted this claim (which always is the claim of truth) in the very presence of those who called him before their tribunals for it. He even sought to proselytize — win over — King Agrippa before their eyes (Acts 24:1-27; Acts 25:1-27; Acts 26:1-32).
Yet Paul refused to allow Christianity to be called a sect because God had spoken in it, and all men were to hear. It was no opinion but revealed truth, and this is the key to the condemnation of heresy in the apostolic writings. There is to be no opinion, no mere human choice among Christians. The one truth claims the allegiance of all. The Word of God has been given to us, and the one Holy Spirit is given to bring us all to one mind about it. All departure from this is to be utterly condemned.
Heresies are spoken of in only three passages in the Epistles. In 2Pe 2:1, the “damnable heresies” of the King James translation has hidden the true meaning. The phrase is literally “heresies of destruction” — heresies that destroy men. These are doctrines brought in by false teachers — doctrines that even deny the Lord who bought them. Here, the teaching obviously is fundamental error, but this does not prove that all heresy is fundamental error. The term is a much wider one than this.
Notice that these false teachers bring in these doctrines “secretly” — not necessarily just whispering them about, for the word means “by the side”: thus in an indirect or not straightforward way. Satan, in attacking the Lord among Christians, naturally takes his own subtle, sneaky way. To expect straightforwardness in the teaching of error is not to know or understand Satan. In view of the divisions that Paul had heard of in Corinth, he adds, “and I partly believe it, for there must also be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you” (1Co 11:18-19). Here, the differences among them were openly showing themselves when they came together at the Lord’s table. These differences came from following different and discordant teachers (1Co 1:10-13). Therefore, Paul calls these differences the fruit of heresies. Also, in speaking to the Galatians, Paul calls these heresies the “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19-20). This is all we have in Scripture as to heresies themselves.
There is one mention of a heretic: “A man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he who is such, is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself” (Tit 3:10-11). For reject, the Revised Version has refuse, with avoid in the margin. The Alford and Ellicott Greek text uses the word shun. J. N. Darby uses have done with. Literally, the word means ask off, or in familiar talk, ask him to excuse you. Thus, “have done with” seems to be the best rendering among the above. The discipline of the assembly is not implied here and the assembly is not in question. This verse deals with a man determined to have and maintain his own opinion. When this is clear, the instruction is to leave him to himself — refuse to listen to him. The reason given is, “for he who is such, is subverted [turned aside, gone out of the way, can’t be helped], and sins, being self-condemned.” The truth bears its own testimony to the conscience, but such a person hardens himself against it. Therefore, there is no use going on with him.
We must find elsewhere the principles that regulate assembly discipline in such cases. The whole question as to whether it is a matter for assembly discipline, is whether the doctrine taught is fundamental or not. For this, every Christian has the means for judgment — the Bible — and the responsibility for making that judgment. As to what is not fundamental, one could not expect all to have the same competency.
So, we should treat party-making as the apostle treats it, by appeal to the conscience and heart. The assembly also has the right to refuse to listen to what doesn’t build it up. For the rest, God must be trusted and we must learn patience with each other. The truth can be trusted to prevail with the true-hearted and authority (short of divine authority) can never help it. All manner of creeds and laws have failed to maintain the truth; and an unwritten creed of conduct in the assembly concerning non-fundamental heresy will be worse in this respect, not better. Such a creed would subject all to the will of the few, which will vary with their character and temperaments, with their knowledge or ignorance of the matter in question and with the many influences that may work on them.
Nothing must stand between the Word of God and the believer, and the Holy Spirit must be the only authoritative Teacher! “You need not that any man teach you” (1Jn 2:27) should be engraved on our hearts. Only where the Holy Spirit is honored and relied on, and only where the Word of God is received as God’s Word, can there be any assurance for anything. If God’s Word is doubtful, where shall we find anything that is less so? On the other hand, nothing must stand between the teacher’s conscience and his Lord as to what he teaches. The Lord says, “He who has My Word, let him speak My Word faithfully” (Jer 23:28). Who shall dictate to a teacher what he is or is not to say? Who is to dictate what the Lord’s people shall receive or not receive? Who is able to be the substitute for the Holy Spirit among God’s people and to do for them what He refuses to do — to keep them from the need of “proving all things” by keeping them from ministry that needs proving, and giving them only what has been decided previously to be good food?
Even if the above sifting of ministry could be done, it would be bad, because it would keep the children of God as babes, unexercised and unaccustomed to decide for themselves between truth and error. Were their teachers not as competent as they believed them to be — possibly in error in some things — it would insure that those accustomed to receiving ministry without exercise would receive the error with no more question than when they were receiving the truth. Such principles, when received and acted on, introduce more than all the evils of an ordinary clergy: they introduce a practical Romanism which prepares the way for a large departure from the truth.
Such infantile Christianity is advocated today in many ways and places as the proper condition of the saint. For instance, I have some letters of two brethren with a third brother, and one of these letters refers to a book by a rationalistic, high-church Episcopalian. The other answers with a remark as to “his allusion to an infidel’s book, which he should know nothing about!” There is no qualification whatsoever, although he knows nothing of the motives that might have led the brother to read such a book. He is not suggesting caution. His words are a statement that no motive could justify a Christian to read such a book.
Others go farther. They refuse even to read the defense of those whom they know to be Christians, and who they themselves have charged with heresy. One gave his reason for not reading a reply to his own pamphlet as “those who read it, fall under the power of it!”
Such Christianity is suited only for some paradise where evil carefully has been fenced out. Such ideas condemn every book that has been written in defense of Christianity, for such books suppose a knowledge of what is said against Christianity. Actually, such thoughts are as well suited to keeping in error as keeping in truth, or to keeping out truth as keeping out error. For such persons, the apostle’s command to “prove all things” either must be too lax, too dangerous, or it must be intended for some special safe class who are to be the custodians of others, but who, unfortunately, are not indicated by Scripture. These rules would, with slight alterations, allow every kind of heresy, while Christianity would become a mere hot house plant to which a breath of cold outside air would almost be fatal.
God forbid that I should cause people to be careless as to how they expose themselves to the attacks of Satan, but carelessness is the very thing caused by such ideas of men for shutting Satan out. In proportion to how much we think we have shut Satan out, we shall be less on our guard. Where does the soldier stand most at ease? Not in the battlefield! Shall we prosper most by being ignorant, or “not ignorant of his (Satan’s) devices” (2Co 2:11)? The trouble everywhere is caused by light, loose, careless dealing with Scripture. Scripture is the pilgrim’s guidebook, the soldier’s manual, the fitting of the man of God for every good work. But, for Scripture to be all these things for us, we must be pilgrims, soldiers, men of God! There is no hope except in this. Further, Scripture, as interpreted by the Holy Spirit to the honest heart, is sufficient for all demands on it. Let us trust it and not be afraid of, or for it. The unreasoning cry of heresy has been used for years to terrorize those who, if any, should have been God’s freemen. They have been made afraid to look at the Word of God for themselves, apart from the guidance of some recognized interpreter. People have been cut off as heretics for putting forth that which, in a “believer knowing no more,” would not have excluded him from fellowship. Others have been put away because they wrote what they might have held privately or talked about here and there to others without such action following. To publish what they held, was to form a party by it, it was said, and a man became a heretic by this.
I want you to see that this human view and treatment of heresy both hinders and limits the Holy Spirit and, therefore, stops progress in the knowledge of divine truth. The only safe thing becomes to reiterate the old truths in the old formula; or if there is development, it must be justified as a development of human standards, not fresh truth from God. Thus, the Christian gathering becomes a sect or heresy — a school of doctrine. The spring of living water is exchanged for the more or less stagnant, reused waters of the cistern, which may become in the end a marsh.
Again, the Lord’s commendation to Philadelphia must be heard here. “You have kept My Word” implies, for all who will receive it, that they allow nothing or no one to rob them of their right and responsibility of knowing for themselves what Christ’s Word is. Paul’s “prove all things” applies to us all individually, and we cannot commit this proving into the hands of others! No assembly, whatever its Christian character, can be permitted to decide for us between heresy and Christian truth. “My sheep hear My voice” is too precious a privilege, too absolute a characteristic of God’s people, to permit it to be taken from us under any conditions!
If I have any truth that I believe in my heart to be truth, God’s people have a right to claim it from me, and I have it in trust to give it to others. That done, it is for each one of them to decide whether they can receive it as truth; and here comes the opportunity for all the help that we can give each other by brotherly conference and free discussion, which these ready charges of heresy tend to make impracticable. If there is nothing being taught that subverts fundamental truth, there is nothing to hinder the freest and widest circulation of all that can be said about it. The more fully this is done, the sooner will that which is of God be sifted from any error and the honest person will find what God has in it for him. Exercise as to the Word will accomplish for us the more intelligent possession of what we had before, even if no fresh truth resulted from the sifting.