b) False Teachers

On the issue of false teachers there are five aspects to consider

(i) the importance of teaching
(ii) the consequence of the teaching
(iii) the authority of the teacher
(iv) the tolerance of false opinions
(v) the separation from false teachers

(i) Firstly we must note the importance of teaching. Christianity comes from the word of God. It is taught to us - in words - the words of the Gospel. That is the form in which the salvation of God is mediated to us. The words are about actions that God has taken in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The words, if they were not about reality, would not be true and would not be saving. But the reality of Jesus death and resurrection is conveyed to us in his word taught in human speech (Luke 24:44-49). Being God's word it is powerful and dynamic, but yet extraordinary as it may seem, it is conveyed in human speech (Romans 1:16-17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

This makes Christianity very susceptible to the problem of false prophets and false teaching. When people come claiming to speak the word of God or to give the true meaning of God's word we have to pay very great attention lest we be hard hearted and rejected God's word or lest we be deceived by false teaching. From the beginning the Devil has been a murderer, a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

By the means of false teaching he brought death into the world when he denied what God had said and reinterpreted what God meant saying: “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5).

Throughout the history of Israel in the Old Testament there has been conflict between the true prophets of God speaking his word, and the false prophets seeking to distort and deny it.

In the New Testament the struggle continued. Establishing the truth and teaching it while rejecting falsehood, exposing and rebuking it was and is a normal part of Christian living. The Christian gospel is not an infinitely malleable set of ideas, relationships or practices. In the opening chapter of the letter to the Galatians Paul exhibits his understanding of the logical status of the gospel message. "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
(Galatians 1:6-9).

From this passage we can see that: there is only one Gospel; that it can be distorted; it can be contradicted; that it is true independent of its preacher and that those who falsify it deserve to be damned (3 anaqema ESV, AV "accursed" NIV "eternally condemned". TDNT "Handing over to God’s judicial wrath"

Consequently it is very important that ministers of the gospel rightly handle the word of truth and that false teachers are rebuked and silenced. This is the import of the instruction of Paul to his protégés and colleagues Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 6-7; 4:1, 6-7, 13; 2 Timothy 2:2, 14-18; 4:1-5; Titus 1:10-11, 13-14, 2:1, 15). It is also his instruction to elders (Acts 20:26-32) as being ‘an apt teacher’ is a prerequisite for their appointment (Tit 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-7). It is critical that an elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9). The character of the ministry of the gospel is handing over the good deposit, the words and the pattern of sound words that have been taught. So
faithfulness is a key prerequisite of the job (2 Timothy 1:13, 2:2) as Paul was faithful to the deposit he received (1 Corinthians 15:3).

(ii) Secondly we must note the consequences of the teaching. For the word of God is not only the great creative redemptive power for good but its perversion the very work of Satan for death and destruction.

By God's word the heavens and earth were created (Psalm 33:6, John1:3). For the Word of God is and always has been with God and is God (John 1:1-2). So when we are dealing with the words of God we are dealing with God himself (Hebrews 4:12-13. The scriptures are breathed out by God so that what the scripture says - God says. This means that the word of God is living and active piercing the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart and at work in believers (Hebrews 4:121 Thessalonians 2:13).

Thus the teaching of God's word is not merely a communication of information, but effectively the pastorally transforming work of God - bringing people to faith in God and transforming people as their minds are renewed to know the mind of God (Romans 10:17, 12:1-2). As Peter said to Jesus: "You have the words of eternal life," (John 6:68).

But Peter later wrote of dangerous consequences of false teachers and false prophets. He knew the importance of reminding Christians of the truth that they had embraced. He knew that this was not based in myths but in his eyewitness experience that accorded with the words of the divinely inspired prophets (2 Peter 1:12-21). So he wrote warning of false prophets and false teachers who would bring in secretly destructive heresies and bringing swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1). But notice that their damaging work is not confined to themselves alone. "And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words" (2 Peter 2:2-3). Peter understood that unstable people twist the scriptures "to their
own destruction". He warned us "You therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability" (2 Peter 3:16-17).

The dangerous consequences of false teaching affect both the hearer and the society, in this life and the next. Paul warned Timothy "avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:16-18). It is why our Lord warned us against false prophets and false shepherds (Matthew 7:15, 24:11-12, 24:24) and reserves some of his most stringent criticism to the religious leaders and teachers of his day. The seven woes he declaims in Matthew 23 is one of the most powerful rejections and warnings about religious leaders in the scriptures. The dreadful consequences of those who follow their duly appointed but false leaders he describes as becoming a "child of hell". These false scribes and Pharisees "shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." (I am not at this point arguing that anybody today is teaching what the Scribes and Pharisees taught but that false teaching is not something that Christians can ignore as harmless when our Lord was so critical of the false teachers of his day because of, amongst other things, the harm they caused to other people.)

The human capacity to be deceived is great for our hearts are sinful and deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9). Unstable people are easy pray for false teachers (2 Timothy 3:6-7) but we all need to be repeatedly warned not to be deceived (1 Corinthians 6:9, 12:1-2, 15:33, Galatians 5:21, 6:7 Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 2:8, James 1:16, 1 John 3:7). Indeed we need even to be warned against ourselves for being deceived one can deceive others - as Paul describes our present age "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Timothy 3:12-13).

(iii) Thirdly we need to understand the authority of the teacher. For though through books and articles, we encounter teaching separated from teachers, in fact teaching does not exist without teachers. And in the church teachers have the authority of leadership. We do not just submit to teaching but to people (1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:17) as we obey their instructions and imitate their faith (1 Corinthians 4:16-17, 11:1 Philippians 3:17, 4:9 2 Thessalonians 3:9).

The link between teaching and authority can be seen in 1 Timothy 2:12 but also in the prerequisite of bishops/elders in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9. It was the task of the Apostles (Matthew 28:20). It is the task of both Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 3:6, 11-16, Titus 2:1, 15). It is the role of the leader in Hebrews 13:7, 17. This is why the elders who labour in teaching are co sidered worthy of double honour (1 Timothy 5:17). It is also why the teacher is to be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1). For the tongue is very powerful in its effects and can cause great damage. It is also why the
elders who are appointed to teach within the Church, must have stable and godly lives and why Timothy must devote himself to both life and doctrine (1 Timothy 4:15-16). For a teacher's obedience to the teaching is essential if he is to care for the church of God (1 Timothy 3:1-7) as well as to avoid the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-2).

(iv) Fourthly we need to note the tolerance of false opinions in the New Testament. Though the teacher is to be judged with greater strictness he does not have to be perfect before teaching. There is acceptable latitude of opinion between Christians and there are matters of indifference that teachers should not enter into. Timothy is to let people see his progress in his life and doctrine. The teacher must hold firmly to what the apostle has taught. But he does not need to know everything. Rather he is to grow in his knowledge and understanding of God. This is the model he needs to set for the congregation (1 Timothy 4:11-16).

Between Christians there will be many different opinions. Even over issues of religious observances. The arguments on Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8-11 and Romans 14 are all premised on the possibility of Christians having different opinions on certain matters.

Food laws, seasonal observations, or drinking wine are not matters central to the kingdom of God and so different attitudes of people's consciences should be allowed for. Otherwise there will be the reconstruction of justification by good works and the undermining of the centrality of justification by faith in the gracious death of our Lord and Saviour.

It is at this point that many attempts at working out with whom we can fellowship go off the rails. For people naturally want a list of the central matters over which we cannot be tolerant and a list of the peripheral matters over which we can exercise some latitude. But there is no possibility of such a list. For even a matter that is of no consequence in itself -like the food we eat or being circumcised - can in some circumstanced be central to gospel fellowship. So in Galatians we are told that "neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Galatians 6:15). Thus Paul refused to submit to the false brothers who would insist on Titus being circumcised. For in the enforced circumcision of Titus he saw that "the truth of the gospel" would be compromised (Galatians 2:3-5). This concern for the truth of the Gospel also lay behind Paul's rebuke of Peter and Barnabas over food laws. For when they refused to fellowship with Gentile Christians for fear of the circumcision party - they were undermining the Gentiles' standing in Christ by faith alone (Galatians 2:11-14). It was a gospel matter even though it was about food and the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating a drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17).

There is no possibility of making the list of matters called adiaphora. For anything can be used to express the truth or to teach falsehood. Though there are matters that are less germane to the gospel. Over these Christians can disagree - it is even good that Christians do disagree - for it clarifies our justification is in Christ’s death.

Furthermore there are some areas of truth that the Christian teacher should leave alone completely. So Paul tells Timothy "Remind them of these things (great truths about dying and enduring with Christ) and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers…avoid irreverent babble" (2 Timothy 2:14-16 cf 1 Timothy 6:3-5) and 1 Timothy concludes "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you." (1 Timothy 6:20-21).

He also warns Titus: "avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless" (Titus 3:9).

(v) Fifthly we must note the separation from false teachers that the Scriptures enjoin upon us. This issue is central to our place in history today. Paul wrote to the Romans: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil." (Romans 16:17-19).

Again Paul teaches about separation from false teachers when he wrote to Timothy concerning teachers such as Hymenaeus and Philetus "who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened". We must not be afraid that God's plans will be thwarted for God know what he is sovereignly doing. He knows who are his. He uses all kinds of instruments to bring about his purpose. But, though false teachers will in time fail like Jannes and Jambres did, yet we are to "avoid such people" (2 Timothy 3:5).

John also teaches the necessity to remove yourself from support of false teaching. He wrote "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works (2 John 7-11).

This teaching of John is consistent with his instructions in his third epistle. For there he makes it clear that by helping strangers who go out in the name of Jesus we are "fellow workers for the truth".
We cannot be rewarded as fellow workers in the truth when we support missionaries, without being criticised and judged for being fellow workers in wickedness if we give similar comfort to false teachers in their ministry.

This hospitality and greeting of teachers is the flip side of Jesus' promise that whoever gives so much as a glass of cold water to a messenger because he comes in the name of Christ will not miss out on his reward (Matthew 10:42). For in helping the little ones of Jesus when they are naked, hungry and thirsty you are helping Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46). It is also indicative of the nature of Jesus teaching on how to treat the repeatedly warned and unrepentant sinner "…let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17).

So when the risen Christ addressed the church of the Ephesians he commended them for their hatred of the work of the Nicolaitans as he held against the church of Pergamum that "you have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans." (Revelation 2:6, 15). But he is really condemnatory of the church in Thyatara because of their tolerance of false teaching and the false teacher: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead" (Revelation 2:20-23).

Thanks for posting this. SF does a good service in disseminating these important papers.

I am realizing more and more that Jesus and his message divide (Matthew 10:33-36) while Satan works through lies and deceptions (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:20, Revelation 3:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14...)
Truth must be the ground of unity.  Unity cannot exist when falsehood is the guiding standard.

FWIW, this is one of the papers noted last week(?) along with accompanying mp3 files for web visitor benefit. Folks might want the reminder of the url:
Sydney papers

This is a paper by Dean Phillip Jensen, not his brother Peter, the archbishop.

This is a very fine Compendium/reference paper.  Thank you for posting it!

The Scripture gives abundant instruction on dealing with false teachers.  However, the rate limiting factor in all this is finding Godly leaders that have the wisdom to discern false teaching and the stamina to see it through that they are brought to judgment.  This is rare in any organization.  They may be looked on as troublemakers like Elijah was called by Ahab.  Perhapse we need to pray more for God to raise up shepherds that will protect the flock even if it cost them a lot. IMHO

I think it’s fair to say that you can put the TEC in one camp (false teachers), while putting ++Akinola and ++Venebles in the other.  Just contrast the muddy and deceptive way the TEC talks and deals with people, while look at the clear and tranparent way ++Akinola and ++Venebles deals with with people.  I know who I’m hitch’in my wagon to...and is sure isn’t the TEC! 
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!  TEC is a slave to their agenda...they are not seeking truth.

Though I disagree at many theological points with Dean Jensen I rather enjoyed his paper. It seriously gives me great pleasure to see Scripture taken so seriously. I don’t have time to write the kind of full response that it really demands. I think the real points for discussion would centre around how the Communion identifies what is adiaphora, in particular focusing on sacramental theology and ecclesiology. (Let me just give a slightly provocative example. Along with the Catholic and Anglican tradition I view lay presidency at the eucharist as church dividing. I understand many in the Diocese of Sydney see it as either an adiaphoron or positively commanded by Scripture. To their credit unlike TEC they have not formally gone forward with their plans despite their convictions. In our Communion who and how ultimately judges what is adiaphora?)

Thank you driver8. I tried to put a post through on this topic re Sydney and lay presidency which didn’t get through, expressing the view that lay presidency is church dividing. I think if Sydney were to go ahead and actually allow that, the Anglican Communion would have yet another big mess on its hands. They are getting a lot of publicity these days as we all struggle with the fractures in our church, but honestly most people who are suffering through all this are looking for the road back to the Anglican Way and Sydney just seems like another (Presbyterian) direction altogether. They’re great Christians for sure, but barely Anglican really.

I always read what the Jensens say with great interest.

They are fine exponents of a very particular theology with it resulting ecclesiology – it’s helpful to remember that combating the developing activities of this diocese was very much part of the briefing for those who produced the Windsor Report.

So I do find it bizarre that the Jensens are willing to make common cause with “false teachers” like Schofield and Drexel Gomez and that a man such as Drexel Gomez should think that he is at one with the doctrines of these brothers.

As the principal of Sydney’s theological College tells us in his paper of this series both bishops Gomez and Schofield are believers and peddlers of false teaching as promoted by Newman – indeed he sees these Anglo-Catholic prelates as liars.

The attitude to lay presidency at the Eucharist in Sydney is permissive; all the canonical prohibitions having already been removed.

Although I thought this article was generally well done, I do not agree with the author’s conclusion that bishops who choose to attend Lambeth are necessarily sinning by doing so.  The issue is not so black and white.  Although Lambeth is a time of fellowship, it is much more than that--it is also a time when decisions are made on issues of great import.  One could say that at Lambeth, the “mind of the communion” is expressed.  Many orthodox bishops I know are choosing to attend Lambeth because they feel that to not attend would be to essentially surrender to the liberal side.  They want to be there to register their disapproval of what is happening in ECUSA (and elsewhere), and to make sure that the communion as a whole continues to uphold godly standards.  In their minds, their responsability to stand up for what is right at Lambeth overrides the fact that they will be forced to fellowship with heretics.  As others have argued, although there were heretics present at the great ecumenical councils, that did not stop the orthodox from attending in order to condemn their heresy.  For that reason, I hope that people will not be too quick to judge orthodox bishops who choose to attend Lambeth.

#10 What TEC has done is to bring together folks who disagree deeply on some things and agree passionately about other things. Perhaps above everything else it has allowed Anglican evangelicals and anglo catholics to defer their disagreements and, so to say, make common cause against the heretics running TEC. Of all the extraordinary things the TEC leadership has brought about over the last 5 years, that is probably the most extraordinary, wouldn’t you agree?

driver8 (#8),

You raised a very important question: WHO gets to decide what is “adiaphora” (or a non-essential matter), what is not, and how?  The Windsor Report calls attention to the sad fact that, alas, we have no agreed mechanism for deciding such things above the provincial level.  I think that is clearly a crippling and devastating weakness, and it’s one of several organizational aspects of current Anglican polity that simply must be overhauled in the New Reformation.  The present international structures of Anglicanism are grossly inadequate and unequal to the challenges we face.

If Anglicanism is to continue to evolve into a true worldwide Communion of Churches and not a mere federation of almost wholly independent national or regional provinces, there must be a way of settling disputes over what’s adiaphora and what’s not in an authoritative way that is binding across the provinces.  This is one of the reasons why I have repeatedly called for the creation of a 5th Instrument of Communion (or Unity) that would function as the international Anglican equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court.  We need some such body to adjudicate matters like this.

David Handy+

Martin,
having corrected Matt earlier in this thread, can I point out that Mark is not the principal of Moore Thelogical College, John Woodhouse is. I doubt that they would disagree on the issue you raise. But it would be a mistake to imagine that Sydneysiders are in total lockstep on everything - we are not interchangeable. But most of us would be closer to Matt theologically than Martin.

driver8 (#12),

Well, I’d partly agree anyway.  Yes, the old adage: “The enemy of my enemy is my new friend,” certainly applies here.  In WWII, the Soviet Union suddenly became our temporary ally after Hitler invaded Russia.  But obviously, that alliance didn’t last.

Will the new alliance last between evangelical Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics (and I’d add charismatic Anglicans as a third group, bridging the divide between the other two)?  That is a huge question that I think no one can answer at this time.  I sure hope a substantial portion of the remarkable unity developing in the CCP lasts (though the APA has already seemed to drop back into mere observer status).  I have seen lots of enthusiasm for cooperation at the grass-roots level among the laity, and the bishops seem to get along well.  The hard part, the main resistance to real, growing unity, will unfortunately probably come from the local parish clergy, who have such vested interests to protect.

Only time will tell how it will all turn out.  But meanwhile, I’m encouraged.  We are seeing some long-standing walls of suspicion and mistrust being broken down in the midst of this fight for the soul of Anglicanism, and yes, some fragile new bridges of mutual respect and cooperation are being built.

But if Sydney were to go ahead with instituting a radical innovation like lay presidency at the Eucharist, that would severely threaten that developing respect and trust.  I would fiercely oppose that development myself.  The basis for bringing evangelicals and catholics together must be through renewed searching of the Holy Scriptures and a recovery of the fullness of the rich patristic inheritance we hold in common.  Lay presidency is incompatible with the patristic norm (and I use the word “norm” very intentionally), which is why I’d oppose it so strongly.

David Handy+

They won’t ordain women as priests in Sydney yet they seem to be prepared to allow lay presidency.

They won’t ordain women as priests in Sydney yet they seem to be prepared to allow lay presidency.

Which, as I have said before, makes perfect sense if you believe in a male-only, but non-sacerdotal priesthood, and are in a situation where there aren’t enough priests.

This is not a free-for-all letting the unwashed masses do the important stuff.

Quite - it’s a distinctive tradition of biblical interpretation. It’s more commonly associated with historic Congregationalism or Presbyterianism than Anglicanism.