Some Christians, under the rubric of "love," will refuse to stand against any other man or group who names the name of Christ. Is that a correct stand? Should we, in order to avoid contention, avoid contending with those who are in error in doctrine? Should we "leave it to God" or "just pray" about it? Or, should we stand before all and declare someone a heretic, or declare that person to be in error, and then declare exactly why? Should we thunder out truth, and boldly proclaim our denunciations of heresy? Or, should we quietly defend, proclaiming truth, teaching true doctrine, not contentiously, but with a quiet and meek spirit?
Bear with me while I explore the matter, for it is more important than you may realize.
Luther was a Catholic priest in the 1500's. He was a very smart man by all accounts, and held a position of the highest order in the University of Wittenberg as Professor of Theology. During the years 1512-18, he lectured daily on Psalms, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews and Titus. Eventually, he was given charge of over eleven monasteries in 1515, and in the same year assumed the pulpit of the City Church in Wittenberg.
And then there arose a difference of opinion on a matter of doctrine.
It was called "indulgences."
Now at first blush, it would not appear to be a matter of doctrine. After all, it is only a word and a system or mechanism to raise money for the church. Or so everyone thought. In the beginning, Luther had no idea the Pope was the one behind the scheme.
Indulgences worked something like this: A person who had sinned, or who had a loved one who had sinned, alive or dead, could get those persons forgiven by the payment of the coin of the realm to the local priest. It really was that simple.
But at the heart of that simple little word, that ploy for raising money for the Pope and his political allies, lay a doctrine. It's a doctrine called salvation. Indulgences cut at the heart of the sacrifice of Christ, for if one can, by the mere payment of money, have sin forgiven, then logically, there was no need for Christ, and clearly, the rich will be able to buy their way into heaven.
Luther stood against it, not realizing at first, that he was also standing against the Pope himself. As a result of his stand, there came to stand beside him many protesters against the Catholic doctrine of indulgences. They became known generally as "Protestants."
What if Luther had not stood? What if he'd not posted his 95 Theses (debate topics) challenging false doctrine?
Now, none of this error came about suddenly. Indulgences didn't spring forth suddenly. The decay of Christianity came about slowly, mostly after it acquired protection and became a political force in the world. Alliances were made that were both advantageous to Christianity and corrupting. A serious decline of medieval church doctrine runs from approximately 1305 to 1517, though the corruption had begun long before. As Christianity sought protection from political alliances with powerful kings, it lost much of its allegiance to God. And the corruption of man's rule making made its way into the doctrinal fabric of Christianity.
Christian history is replete with the rising of one person or individuals to direct Christians into a doctrinal position unsupported biblically. The Bible tells of such an attempt within just a few short years after Jesus' death, in the book of Acts, beginning at chapter 15. Certain men from Judaea came and said that unless one was baptized after the manner of Moses, one could not be saved. In other words, they substituted a formality, a ritual, for the salvation that comes by faith alone. There was a big dispute, so much so that Paul and Silas went to Jerusalem to debate the issue.
No sooner had they arrived in Jerusalem, when there arose certain believers who had been of the Pharisee sect, and who declared that salvation must be accompanied by circumcision, and that the law of Moses must also be followed. So now, they went from not only having to get baptized to get salvation, but in addition, one must be circumcised, and one must thereafter follow the law of Moses. Is it any wonder that hundreds of years later, we find Christians corrupted with rules and regulations, and salvation made into a purchased product called "indulgences?"
Peter and Paul and others of the apostles were able to squelch this attempted modification of doctrine. They did it by standing before the others and presenting the truths they had received. Peter told how salvation came to the Gentiles by his own mouth, through faith, the same as it had come to the Jew. And Paul and Silas stood and told of the miracles wrought by the Lord through them, and then James rose and spoke and admonished the assembly that the Gentiles that had been saved were chosen of God for salvation. He quoted Scripture to back up his argument, then ended it with a plea for the brethren to write letters to these Gentiles, urging them, among other things, to follow some things from Moses' law, particularly concerning abstaining from fornication, and idols, and from eating meat strangled, and from the eating of blood.
God saw fit to begin raising up men to stand against error early in the beginning days of Christianity. One of the earliest defenders of the faith and doctrine, was Tertullian, from Carthage, North Africa (some say he was a lawyer). Sadly, this able apologist himself fell into error, later following what became known as Montanism. This started with a man named Montanus who sought to return Christians to its early fervor and spiritual emphasis, a noble goal and a worthy one. However, as part of its endeavors, the Montanists believed that a new era of prophecy had come, that revelations continued to abound, including direct revelations from God. Martyrdom was a goal to be sought, and was said to have sin-atoning power.
On the heels of the Montanists came other heresies and heretics, each proudly proclaiming his own special understanding of "the truth" and the "true way." They each caused many to follow them into error. And they each were confronted with their error by those who God raised up to keep the Christian churches from following them into error. It is impossible to read the history of Christianity without seeing the impacts made upon it by those who sought to modify the foundational truths of the gospel.
Moreover, in the reading of the history of Christianity, it quickly becomes clear that there isn't a heresy that has not been proclaimed at one time or another. There are no new errors, just the same old heresies packaged in different wrappings, and proclaimed by a new set of heretics. And like those before, they soon fall away, but not before sweeping many along with them into error. Sadly, though the heretics fall into the dust, their errors remain, and the monuments they raised unto their error often survives them.
So what does the Christian do about doctrinal error? What is the correct approach?
Well, historically, the approach has been to present a well reasoned argument against the error. In short, there must be propounded in opposition, the truth, else error will take the field. In all of life, there is conflict. We are born to it. We may hate it. We may resist it. We may seek to avoid it. But conflict is our lot, because if we do not resist evil men, then evil men will have their way, and evil ideas will soon surround us. We cannot stand idle against evil, nor can we be silent in the face of doctrinal error, where that error is of a sort likely to affect the gospel, and particularly if it will diminish, in the slightest, the doctrine of the effectual saving grace of the Savior.
But how do we stand? We are not all as articulate as Luther. We are not all theologians. But we all know (or should) the simple gospel. And if any man or woman seeks to change that gospel into another gospel, we are not to bid such a one god-speed, nor are we to give anyone the idea we espouse their error. So the least we can do is avoid them. Thus, we do not watch and hear them propound their error on television. We do not support them financially by purchasing their books. We do not buy their tapes or albums, or other merchandise, lest we aid them in spreading their error.
However, there is no place in the Scriptures which teach that we are to be unkind, unloving or harsh in our treatment of such persons. Indeed, we are taught just the opposite.
(James 3:8-12) "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. {9} Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. {10} Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. {11} Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? {12} Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh."
Notice here that we are not to curse men. That word "curse" is not merely to utter profane words against another, but includes what is known as "railing" on another, that is, bitter, vehement denouncements. We are, in essence, told that we cannot be two-faced.
James continues:
(James 3:13-18) "Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. {14} But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. {15} This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. {16} For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. {17} But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. {18} And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."
Those who know the gospel are to show a life of good works, and a meekness of wisdom. In other words, there should be no arrogance in our understanding of the gospel and our proclamation of its truth, as though we are some sort of special holder of this truth. This truth is common to all true believers. If there comes to us envious, bitter strife, we are told that we are in the place where there is confusion and evil works. That means we're a part of an evil work. And notice finally, there is a plea for peace.
But as we all know, peace at any price is not peace, but slavery. So, while the Scriptures admonish for us to live peaceably with all men as much as possible, there is no declaration that peace is an absolute. It is a desired goal. It is something we ought to seek and advocate. But not at the price of our liberty in Christ, nor at the price of surrendering our truths on the altar of heresy.
So back to the question: What does a Christian do with respect to doctrinal error being propounded? Suppose, for example, it comes from your pastor? What do you do? Should you leave the church? Should you confront him? Should you bring it to the deacons?
Well, regardless of whether it is the pastor or a layman who is propounding error, if the error is significant, that is, if the error impacts on one of the major doctrines of the Bible, particularly salvation, then the first step is to simply confront the person quietly, one-on-one. Or, if you're a timid soul, bring it to the attention of a deacon, or the pastor, or someone in a more responsible position. And of course, pray about the matter. At that point, it is a matter for the leaders to decide. They must do even as they did in the early church, i.e., debate the issue, and decide upon what course of action to take, and declare what is the truth. That is not something you are responsible for doing (though there is no place in Scripture I know that forbids your being a substantive part of the process, to wit, you clearly can have input into the matter.) It may be that you need to articulate your position on the matter in a writing, if you're not particularly adept at oral communications.
The leadership has a responsibility before God to do what is necessary, what is right. Heavy hangs over their heads for violation of their duty. God takes duty seriously. The High Priest had a very precise procedure he had to follow. He could not modify that course of conduct. If he did, he died. God used some 40 chapters to lay out the duties and obligations of the priest and the building of the tabernacle. He did not say, "Well, make it a rectangle fifty feet long or so and put some covering over it." If you read that section of scriptures, you'll see precise instructions. God knew exactly what He wanted.
In duty, Jesus talked about putting the hand to the plow and looking back. The scriptures speak of vowing a vow, and not paying. We're told that whatsoever our hand finds to do to do it with our might. Diligence is taught in the Bible. Duty is taught in the Bible. So then, those who have duty to lead, have that duty to you and to God. If they fail you, they fail God. If they are derelict in their duty, they have shunned the admonitions of God. They have done as Saul did when he sought to perform the duties of a priest.
Now suppose the leadership does nothing. What then? Well, there are several recourses. First, it may be that you should leave the church and find another one. Or, it may be that you are needed in that church, and even though there is error of a serious nature, your presence is required there of the Lord. In other words, you may be the "salt" God has placed in the church.
Should you rail on those propounding error? No. If you are a teacher, teach the truth, even if it is contradictory to those in authority. It may eventually cost you your job. But that's not your concern, but God's. If you're not a teacher, you still have opportunity to teach the truth. We are all commanded to "exhort one another." You will find occasions on which you can exhort fellow members and deliver to them truth.
Should you be contentious with your stand? No. "Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom." (Proverbs 13:10). You should present your truth in meekness, not proudly, but once it is presented and rejected, there is no obligation that you continue to confront them with their error. But there is a duty for you to continue to confront them, and anyone else who will hear you, with the truth.
And herein lies the root of all our problems with confronting error in our churches. The Bible says to speak the truth "in love" (Eph 4:15). We are admonished "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; {3} Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." : (Ephesians 4:2-3). That image does not comport with the individual who stands, face set hard, jaw thrust forward, loudly and proudly proclaiming the truth. You see, we oft stand and speak the truth, but we do not always speak the truth in love. And therein lies the difficulty. Proud, divisive stands will inevitably bring war, not peace.
But do not mistake the stand of one who proclaims truth in love as a weak, feeble attempt to "stand for God and truth." One may speak boldly, in love. One may speak loudly, in love. One may speak long, in love. But one may never, ever speak proudly, in love. And one may speak in anger, in love. Jesus certainly was angry with the money changers. The words Jesus spoke were sharp ones. So do not confuse speaking the truth in love with someone who is always quiet. It may be so, but there may come one who speaks loudly, and who speaks with love. But if he speaks proudly, it is never in love. Never. The speech of one who is contentious is far different than one who proclaims truth. The contentious person may speak truth, but it is not in love. It is done in pride.
Final thoughts. Doctrine is important. Error is as a cancer, a malignancy. Error in doctrine has condemned millions to hell because they went through life trusting in a man-made doctrine, a doctrine of truth modified by men, instead of truth once delivered to the saints by God. Paul spoke of "doctrines of devils" and we must assume that he was not speaking allegorically, but had in mind doctrines which originate with the father of lies, Satan. So doctrinal error is an evil to be resisted. It is an evil to be confronted. It is an evil to be condemned. It is an evil to be exposed.
But consider doing one thing, before you make that confrontation. Think about the person who is propounding the error, who is seriously wrong in their doctrine. Now place upon the shoulders of that man, the head of your son or your father or someone you dearly love, perhaps a blood brother. Here's the key question you must ask yourself: WOULD YOUR ACTIONS, YOUR WORDS AND YOUR STAND BE ANY DIFFERENT? Would the tone of your voice soften? Would your entreatments be kinder, gentler? Would you do differently?
Your love for your son or father or brother would no doubt cause you to soften your words and your actions. But while it may do that, your relationship should never, ever cause you to betray your stand, or modify your stand against error. As I once told a man against whom I'd stood on a matter: "In order to ensure that my stand was in love, I put my son's head on your shoulders and it was his face I saw when I stood. I can truthfully say that were you my own son, I'd have done and said exactly what I did. Indeed, were you my son, I'd probably have gone one step further, in that I'd have taken you aside and been much more direct with you." You see, loyalty to one's own blood or to a friend is never to replace loyalty to God. As I've told my kids over the years: "If Dad ever goes bad, you stand for God, even if it means you have to stand against me. You don't have a choice. You stand for God. I tell you this now, because if I fall away from God I'll want your loyalty over God."
Finally, it is never wrong to tell someone that the devil is a liar. Thus, it follows that if one is propounding a doctrine of devils, that is, the person is teaching as truth, a lie from Satan, then it cannot be wrong to tell the hearer or the potential hearer, that the speaker is teaching a lie, and that to follow his lie is to follow Satan's lead.
That's just plain ole common sense.
But it's that little bit of the command to do it "in love" that is the rub.
The End 
Copyright 2000 Voyle Glover
