What should we do with false teaching?

[Neostarwcc]

I'm not talking about blatantly obvious false teachers like Jim Olsteen or Bill Winston or Joyce Meyer ...etc. I'm talking about preachers who generally have a good reputation but unlike my examples above who only "preach" to lead people further and further away from Christ they instead by make sure that.

I'll give an example. John Mcarthur. now, I generally don't agree with Batpist Theology but I do love and respect Mcarthurs teachings because they are generally spot on as to what the Bible says and only to what the Bible says. I absolutely adore that. Yet, many people call him a false prophet despite him generally having generally solid teaching. Mainly because he in a Catholic bashing sermon declared that Mary wasn't the mother of God making him guilty of teaching the heresy of Neostorianism.

I could include a few other solid Theologians out there but you get the gist of my question though, I hope. If not maybe you guys can help me make it clearer.

 

[PloverWing]

Is it sufficient to simply disagree with him? Or are you looking for some kind of disciplinary board to reprimand him in some way?

If he does encounter some kind of correction, I'd like to see it start with a conversation, rather than with disciplinary action. "Pastor, what you said on Sunday seems to disagree with the Council of Chalcedon. Is that what you meant to say?" and see where it goes from there.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Just to add a portion from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (p 29-30):

The Bible often connects sound doctrine with maturity in Christian living; Paul speaks of "the teaching which accords with godliness" (1 Timothy 6:3) and says that his work as an apostle is "to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness" (Titus 1:1). By contrast, he indicates that all kinds of disobedience and immorality are "contrary to sound doctrine." (1 Timothy 1:10)

In connection with this idea it's appropriate to ask what the difference is between a "major doctrine" and a "minor doctrine." Christians often say they want to seek agreement in the church on major doctrines but also to allow for differences on minor doctrines. I have found the following guideline useful:

A major doctrine is one that has significant impact on our thinking about other doctrines, or that has a significant impact on how we live the Christian life. A minor doctrine is one that has very little impact on how we think about other doctrines, and very little impact on how we live the Christian life.

By this standard doctrines such as the authority of the Bible, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, justification by faith and many others would rightly be considered major doctrines. People who disagree with the historical evangelical understanding of any of these doctrines will have wide areas of difference with evangelical Christians who affirm these doctrines. By contrast, it seems to me that differences over forms of church government or some details of the Lord's supper (Chapter 50) or the timing of the great tribulation concern minor doctrines. Christians who differ over these things can agree on perhaps every other area of doctrine, can live Christian lives that differ in no important way, and can have genuine fellowship with one another.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

I'm not talking about blatantly obvious false teachers like Jim Olsteen or Bill Winston or Joyce Meyer ...etc. I'm talking about preachers who generally have a good reputation but unlike my examples above who only "preach" to lead people further and further away from Christ they instead by make sure that.

I'll give an example. John Mcarthur. now, I generally don't agree with Batpist Theology but I do love and respect Mcarthurs teachings because they are generally spot on as to what the Bible says and only to what the Bible says. I absolutely adore that. Yet, many people call him a false prophet despite him generally having generally solid teaching. Mainly because he in a Catholic bashing sermon declared that Mary wasn't the mother of God making him guilty of teaching the heresy of Neostorianism.

I could include a few other solid Theologians out there but you get the gist of my question though, I hope. If not maybe you guys can help me make it clearer.

McArthur has a lot of solid teaching. I guess in the past year a lot's been made of him saying this: "It’s heretical to call the blood of Jesus Christ the blood of God, and it demonstrates a failure to understand what theologians have called the hypostatic union, that is the God-man union in Christ.
There are others who say that there’s something magical in the blood, there’s something in the blood itself that washes sin away, when the Scripture teaches it was the death of Christ that atoned for sin, and He shed His literal blood in sacrificial evidence of the pouring out of His life for sin. But there was nothing magic about that blood itself that could wash sin. And so, this heresy has begun to develop, strangely enough."

As for the first part, he's plain wrong: Acts 20:28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Note, Jesus isn't mentioned here, yet we know it was Jesus blood that was shed, and here we have 1) the Holy Ghost, and 2) the church of God, which He purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD. (I love using this with Jehovah's Witnesses!

As for the second part - I agree in part that some people take it to the extreme, claiming the blood, or "pleading the blood" which no scripture ever tells us to plead the blood. However, scripture is also clear HIS BLOOD

1 John 1:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

Heb 9:22, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Colossians 1:14, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Better have a KJV or other version based on the Textus Receptus or the blood will be missing in this verse, in NIV, ESV, etc)

Luke 22:20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
--------

As far as what to do with false teaching? If it's nonsense like Joel Osteen, or the prosperity preachers, or new agers, come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the LORD. Expose the teaching, and use correction where applicable.
But as for others who do have solid teaching but once in awhile come up with something that doesn't sit right, eat the meat, throw away the bones.

 

[HarleyER]

I'm not talking about blatantly obvious false teachers like Jim Olsteen or Bill Winston or Joyce Meyer ...etc. I'm talking about preachers who generally have a good reputation but unlike my examples above who only "preach" to lead people further and further away from Christ they instead by make sure that.

I'll give an example. John Mcarthur. now, I generally don't agree with Batpist Theology but I do love and respect Mcarthurs teachings because they are generally spot on as to what the Bible says and only to what the Bible says. I absolutely adore that. Yet, many people call him a false prophet despite him generally having generally solid teaching. Mainly because he in a Catholic bashing sermon declared that Mary wasn't the mother of God making him guilty of teaching the heresy of Neostorianism.

I could include a few other solid Theologians out there but you get the gist of my question though, I hope. If not maybe you guys can help me make it clearer.

Keep in mind, we are to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. We are responsible for our walk with God. Consequently, if we were to agree with everything we were told, then we're not thinking and WE are accountable. But one can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Many godly men have great insight to provide. We listen to them and compare the scriptures to see if these things are so. And one can compare multiple sources to make sure they are giving you the straight scoop.

I wouldn't worry about what other people state. The closer you get towards the truth of the scripture and being exhorted to apply it to your life, the more criticism and abuse one will get. Also, the more persecution you will receive. Consequently, you have people like Olsten or Meyer (and even the Pope) who are adored by the press and so-called believers. MacArthur, OTOH, finds himself the constant source of criticism, not because he's wrong (although sometimes he is), but because they don't like the message that he presents-the true gospel. All one has to do is compare the scripture to the messenger. I like John MacArthur but I don't agree with him on everything. On some things he drives me crazy. Yet, I'm sorry there aren't more MacArthurs in the church.

BTW-Neostorianism is the belief that denies the reality of the Incarnation and represents Christ as a God-inspired man rather than as God-made-man. That is absolutely not what MacArthur has stated. MacArthur has stated that God was fully man and fully God. I have NEVER heard him state Christ was only inspired.

As far as the "Mother of God", this title is a western derivation from the Greek Theotokos, which means “God-bearer”. At one time there was a large debate on this very issue as to whether to call Mary the "Mother of God" or the "Mother of Christ". Some were hesitant to accept the first view for the very reason that has happened, the elevation of Mary as the "Mother of God". But the Church went ahead with the term "Mother of God" and now we see that the group that opposed it were correct, the very thing they thought would happen, happened.

MacArthur has rightfully stated that Mary wasn't the "mother of God". Mary was the mother of Christ. Mary was not eternal nor did she give birth to God. Jesus distanced Himself from this way of thinking by calling Mary "woman". Mary, OTHO, acknowledged that she was a sinner in need of redemption.

 

[PloverWing]

BTW-Neostorianism is the belief that denies the reality of the Incarnation and represents Christ as a God-inspired man rather than as God-made-man. That is absolutely not what MacArthur has stated. MacArthur has stated that God was fully man and fully God. I have NEVER heard him state Christ was only inspired.

Nestorianism is more subtle than this. Nestorius didn't deny that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Nestorius and the Chalcedonians agree that Jesus had both a human "nature" and a divine "nature". The debate is over whether Jesus had one "person" or two "persons". Chalcedon said one, and the Nestorians said two.

(Disclaimer: "Nature" and "person" here are translating technical Greek terms. Further disclaimer: Some of the ancient schisms over this question have turned out to be disagreements about wording rather than about actual beliefs. See Nestorianism - Wikipedia and Prosopon - Wikipedia.)

I don't know whether MacArthur intended to get into the philosophical nuances of "nature" vs. "person". I suspect not. I'm guessing he's just bothered by the possibility that the title "Theotokos" or "Mother of God" can be misleading if it is not carefully explained.

The Chalcedonian Definition is not an obscure document. It's a well-known and widely-agreed-upon statement. If MacArthur was going to disagree with the Chalcedonian statement publicly, I would prefer for him to have cited Chalcedon explicitly, and then to explain why he disagrees with its wording (or why he thinks its wording is misleading in English, or why he disagrees with Chalcedon altogether, or whatever his position is). But he didn't ask me.

 

[HarleyER]

Nestorianism is more subtle than this. Nestorius didn't deny that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Nestorius and the Chalcedonians agree that Jesus had both a human "nature" and a divine "nature". The debate is over whether Jesus had one "person" or two "persons". Chalcedon said one, and the Nestorians said two.

(Disclaimer: "Nature" and "person" here are translating technical Greek terms. Further disclaimer: Some of the ancient schisms over this question have turned out to be disagreements about wording rather than about actual beliefs. See Nestorianism - Wikipedia and Prosopon - Wikipedia.)

I don't know whether MacArthur intended to get into the philosophical nuances of "nature" vs. "person". I suspect not. I'm guessing he's just bothered by the possibility that the title "Theotokos" or "Mother of God" can be misleading if it is not carefully explained.

The Chalcedonian Definition is not an obscure document. It's a well-known and widely-agreed-upon statement. If MacArthur was going to disagree with the Chalcedonian statement publicly, I would prefer for him to have cited Chalcedon explicitly, and then to explain why he disagrees with its wording (or why he thinks its wording is misleading in English, or why he disagrees with Chalcedon altogether, or whatever his position is). But he didn't ask me.

Thanks for the expanded version.

I'm not sure what John MacArthur might have said. But 1) great pastors make mistakes from time to time (just ask Alistair Beggs), and 2) people tend to misinterpret, for whatever reason, what is being said. Here is a brief summary of a 11 part series from MacArthur's site although I would assume that he is well aware of this heresy.

Whenever people start talking about the doctrine of the Trinity or the incarnation they always seem to find themselves in trouble. (Shall I share my "the Trinity is like an egg" analogy. Just kidding.)

 

[PloverWing]

Whenever people start talking about the doctrine of the Trinity or the incarnation they always seem to find themselves in trouble.

I agree with that!

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Thanks for the expanded version.

I'm not sure what John MacArthur might have said. But 1) great pastors make mistakes from time to time (just ask Alistair Beggs), and 2) people tend to misinterpret, for whatever reason, what is being said. Here is a brief summary of a 11 part series from MacArthur's site although I would assume that he is well aware of this heresy.

Whenever people start talking about the doctrine of the Trinity or the incarnation they always seem to find themselves in trouble. (Shall I share my "the Trinity is like an egg" analogy. Just kidding.)

LoL. I looked up Trinity Like an Egg on Google, and it's about half and half. LoL.

However, the truth lies in the Egg itself!

 

[HarleyER]

LoL. I looked up Trinity Like an Egg on Google, and it's about half and half. LoL.

View attachment 345587
View attachment 345588
View attachment 345589

However, the truth lies in the Egg itself!

View attachment 345590

LOL!

 

[com7fy8]

About Joel and Joyce, when was the last time you evaluated them? They seem to have developed and use scripture more now, though I am still concerned with how much they believe we can use God's word to control Him, and how much their focus is on how an individual can get his or her own self blessed. Now I see we are more as a family getting blessed, including with prayer and example ministering to each other.

What gets my attention is how ones seem very busy with splitting hairs about rhe Trinity and other theoretical things, but they do not give attention to how to become changed to be and to love like Jesus, and all the Bible says about how to relate as God's family and get real correction of our character so we can stay submissive to God in His peace.

But Joyce and Joel now seem to get more into this . . . than they used to. So, in case we are going to name certain people, we need to be up-to-date, I would say.

And make sure we are submitting to God and relating the way His word says, because of how He is correcting our character > Hebrews 12:4-14.

 

[tdidymas]

I'm not talking about blatantly obvious false teachers like Jim Olsteen or Bill Winston or Joyce Meyer ...etc. I'm talking about preachers who generally have a good reputation but unlike my examples above who only "preach" to lead people further and further away from Christ they instead by make sure that.

I'll give an example. John Mcarthur. now, I generally don't agree with Batpist Theology but I do love and respect Mcarthurs teachings because they are generally spot on as to what the Bible says and only to what the Bible says. I absolutely adore that. Yet, many people call him a false prophet despite him generally having generally solid teaching. Mainly because he in a Catholic bashing sermon declared that Mary wasn't the mother of God making him guilty of teaching the heresy of Neostorianism.

I could include a few other solid Theologians out there but you get the gist of my question though, I hope. If not maybe you guys can help me make it clearer.

"Nobody's perfect" means that there is no one (save Jesus alone) who is infallible. It is difficult understanding new truth when someone speaks it, and even more difficult understanding truth when people say things wrong. Knowing this, we have to take everything we hear with a "grain of salt," meaning don't just swallow what you think you're hearing "hook, line, and sinker."

If I think I'm hearing something wrong, I first rehash what was said, in order to understand what the other person is thinking. I first need to get right about what they mean. Then if I disagree, I check the scripture to see if what they say aligns with it. I then have to decide if my opinion or their opinion needs to change in accordance with God's word.

As I mature in the faith, I know that people think what they think, and everyone has an opinion, and my own opinion is accountable to God. Yet, I tolerate other peoples' opinions (if I think them wrong), especially if I don't have a close friendly relationship with them. Chances are, people will cling to their opinions even after many words of persuasion.

I try to encourage the faith of others, rather than force a "right answer." If I must reply to someone, I say "I believe... because the Bible says..."

 

[Aaron112]

If not maybe you guys can help me make it clearer.

Purify yourself because He (Jesus) is pure.

 

[Stephen3141]

I'm not talking about blatantly obvious false teachers like Jim Olsteen or Bill Winston or Joyce Meyer ...etc. I'm talking about preachers who generally have a good reputation but unlike my examples above who only "preach" to lead people further and further away from Christ they instead by make sure that.

I'll give an example. John Mcarthur. now, I generally don't agree with Batpist Theology but I do love and respect Mcarthurs teachings because they are generally spot on as to what the Bible says and only to what the Bible says. I absolutely adore that. Yet, many people call him a false prophet despite him generally having generally solid teaching. Mainly because he in a Catholic bashing sermon declared that Mary wasn't the mother of God making him guilty of teaching the heresy of Neostorianism.

I could include a few other solid Theologians out there but you get the gist of my question though, I hope. If not maybe you guys can help me make it clearer.

(You start from the assumption that you hold orthodox Christian teaching.
But you do not describe what you believe that is.

It's impossible to address your question, without knowing what you believe.

Many Baptists hold to a low church theology, that does not recognize the same sacraments
as Christians in the early centuries. Or, the same view of Communion. Or the same view of
what Church leadership is. Many low church Christians do not accept the Nicene Creed,
as a summary of required Christian doctrine.

You need to describe what page you're on, theologically, before anyone can guess
what you think are theologies that are not on "your page".

 

[Simon_Templar]

It is largely pointless to spend your time focusing on what other people are wrong about.

I admit I think it's a bit funny with McArthur because he has a long history of condemning everyone he disagrees with, so there is some poetic justice in it.

However, I don't spend time thinking about McArthur one way or the other.

There is, of course, a time to address when a popular teacher says something false and stupid and to point out why it is wrong in order to help people avoid being deceived by it.

It is one thing to say, "yea this guy is wrong about this and here is why." It is another entirely if every thing a person has to say is about how someone else is wrong.

 

[HopeSings]

First identify it then rebuke it.

 

[HopeSings]

It is largely pointless to spend your time focusing on what other people are wrong about.

I admit I think it's a bit funny with McArthur because he has a long history of condemning everyone he disagrees with, so there is some poetic justice in it.

However, I don't spend time thinking about McArthur one way or the other.

There is, of course, a time to address when a popular teacher says something false and stupid and to point out why it is wrong in order to help people avoid being deceived by it.

It is one thing to say, "yea this guy is wrong about this and here is why." It is another entirely if every thing a person has to say is about how someone else is wrong.

That's why church is so messed up. No one cares to talk about what is good abd bad

 

[Simon_Templar]

That's why church is so messed up. No one cares to talk about what is good abd bad

Actually people never stop talking about what is bad. Our whole culture has become nothing but outrage at what the other guy is doing.

 

[HopeSings]

Actually people never stop talking about what is bad. Our whole culture has become nothing but outrage at what the other guy is doing.

I agree. It's what I'm saying. Judging outsiders is not sound doctrine according to Paul. We are supposed to judge the church instead, as Paul said.

We need to judge the Church for its political division, factions, contention, bitterness, clamor, gossip, suspicions, conspiracies theories, judging without mercy, judhing in hypocrisy, and lording over people's lives instead of serving them in the love of Jesus.

We need to rebuke the church also for its political and economic fears, worries and concerns. This isn't the faith that Jesus and the apostles teach us.