Have NOTHING to do with those who teach error!

The barefaced manner in which certain persons assert that to separate from men who hold vital errors is contrary to the mind of Christ, would be amusing if it were not saddening. They write as if such a Book as the New Testament were not in existence: they evidently decide what the mind of Christ ought to be, without referring to such poor creatures as the apostles. As for us, we think more of Paul and John than of the whole body of modern thinkers. What saith the Scriptures? 'If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.' (2 John 10, 11) 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed' (Gal. 1:8, 9). The spirit of Scripture is one, and therefore we may be sure that decision for truth, and separation from the erring, are in full consistency with the charity of 1 Corinthians 13, to which we are so continually pointed. It is true charity to those who err to refuse to aid and abet them in their errors. 'Charity' sounds very prettily in the mouths of those who wish to screen themselves, but, if they had exercised it in the past, they might not have driven us out from among the people, to whom we naturally belong." The preceeding was from Charles Spurgeon's battle against "the downgrade" of doctrine in his day. It is from his "Notes" section added to his article "Restoration of Truth and Revival," from the Sword and the Trowel, December 1887 [In this last sentence, Spurgeon refers to his recent departure from the Baptist Union.] Isnt it interesting, folks, that Charles Spurgeon issued this warning 118 years ago? And the Body of Christ, for the most part, has ignored this warning. And look at the shape of the church now. We must separate from those who teach error… not embrace them as brothers and sisters. We need to be obedient to the entire Word of God, not just the parts that give us warm fuzzies.Krispy

I know you've taken alot of flak about this subject here. After just completing reading a work on the lives and teachings of the great reformers, I must say that I am in harmony with God's Word as you are. Sugar coating does not change the inside. To attempt to condone or feed it to others is not love. That said, we should ever be diligent to speak the truth, reminding ourselves and others ,that it must be spoken in love. Popular? Hardly. But it is scriptural and godly, as you and Brother Sprugeon so clearly have shown above. So thank you for your courageous spirit. If you see Charles, tell him thank you as well. God bless you real good today,Lahry

Having had experience of a large group of elders apparently falling under the confusion which arises when one in error happened to be indirectly related to one who was not (teaching error), I'd say the primary responsibility rests on those who believe God has given them authority through the Holy Ghost - the elders who know that a brother is in error. I have been taught that authority is 'male' but I would qualify that statement further. Authority is male, if the male is holding Christ as his Head. Primarily, this applies within marriage and ideally within the church. But, Romans 16:1 seems to have a lady being referred to as a deacon, not a deaconess (Perhaps there is a Greek explanation for this, but I heard it expounded by a Greek scholar. Need I say this Greek scholar is also a lady evangelist with a gift of healing?) and I personally remain to be convinced; where a false teacher is not only perverting truth by doctrine which he has tweaked to suit his fleshly mind, but also is daily living a non-Christian life and working hard by his actions (and their spiritual implications) to undermine God's work in His true flock, if males in that church don't act to bring such a situation to an end, there should be liberty for females who 'see' so, to act, or the men must necessarily bear this added responsibility.If elders in churches who recognise error, (with the objectivity only possible from outside), do not take the offensive when they know a little (or worse, a large) flock is being ravaged by a wolf, they cannot be surprised by what has been suffered by those under attack, nor, if their credibility (and possibly that of the Lord) is less than they would wish in the eyes of those who suffered under their silence. If it were a matter of Christians suffering in a non-Christian setting, for the Name of the Lord, that would be a whole different scenario. What seems unacceptable to the Lord and to the apostles, is for Christian leaders to fail their universal flock in this way. I do realise that once one gets up close to these situations, there are many sensibilities which seem to plead for admittance, but, the wider implications to the lives which are being most devastated, will not come to light until the rug is pulled out from under the overlooking of error.If I could use a quick analogy. When you read the label on disinfectant, it usually offers several different dilutions depending on the use to which any one strength will be put. Weak concentrations are surprisingly effective against some of the most dangerous organisms. They work by being weak enough to pass through the cell wall, thus polluting the internal world of the organism. It dies. This is how false teaching works. Or, there is something closer to Is 5:20 - 23, which is a diabolical contradiction of truth, comparable to using the disinfectant full strength. This acts more like drinking it than applying it externally. The whole person is under attack, not just their mind and spirit.

We must separate from those who teach error… not embrace them as brothers and sisters. It still amazes me that there seems to be a blindness to the possibility of slipping in to someone else's church, to hear and see what the Lord is doing; perhaps an inability to sit quietly at the back and refuse to be called up to the platform* or persuaded to speak*. These* ploys would be two ways that 'false brethren' manage to camouflage the true state of their 'ministry'; they try to make it look as if the true brother is associating with them publicly - which is the way to destroy the true brother's reputation in the eyes of those who are desperately seeking one in whom to confide privately. The false brother knows this. He is working with the wiles of the enemy and to a completely different set of rules from the true brother. If a false brother is openly hostile, a visiting elder should be deeply concerned and not able to go away and 'forget' all about it, wondering that anyone stays in such a 'church'.A friend of mine, whose daughter was diagnosed with severe dylexia when she was 16, 8 years after it was first noted by a primary school teacher, in a meeting with the head of English and a deputy headmaster, was bullied by both of them for a whole hour, while she tried to find out why they had failed her child so absolutely. Being trained in a different field of children's work, she came away with enough composure to make an appropriate deduction: 'If they treated me like this in a brief encounter, then they treated my child worse than this when they had her alone and at their mercy.' I would transfer this picture directly into church situations. If a visitor picks up on inconsistencies when a church leader is on his guard, then they should be under no illusion that what goes on when he is not on his guard, is very likely worse.Having heard preaching on the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 directed towards me as a flock member; are they? Did the Lord write to 'the angel' (the elder) a letter in which all the 'thee', 'thy' and 'thou's are singular, or plural, or are they mixed up?Two verses come to mind. They are extreme, both, but may help to bring a perspective to these issues.Acts 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. In my situation, I rescued myself by leaving; but this was about 9 years after my first instinct to leave, because I had made the assumption that the eldership to whom I submitted, was as godly as I had been told and had seen with my own eyes was acknowledged by others. These acknowledging others were true brethren who fell into the trap of being submitted to other elders who were also true brethren, none of whom were comfortable with breaking rank. It bothers me that there had been concerns, but, these did not extend to warning the flock of the false shepherd, of his past deceptions. To me, this is a church-internalised cycle which someone has to be prepared to break into from the outside, as from the inside, it is even harder to break out.It makes me feel weak to write these things. I don't do so lightly. One thing I particularly noticed after I'd settled in a safe church, was that the eldership regularly welcomed preachers from other places. This cross-fertilisation with the word of God, enabled Him to endorse the local eldership through the mouths of others who could have had no 'idea' that He was using them thus. This was immensely comforting to me personally. It also signaled the willingness of the local eldership to be scrutinised by other brethren, and for their flock to receive fresh ministry from above. This too was wonderfully comforting.

Concerning who we separate from, we must remember to receive the brother who differs with us on minor doctrine, Yes. Within and between churches, my comments are not about minor manners. If they are involved in outward sin, get away from them: "if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."As Compton indicated, it is not always possible to know what goes on in private. His point about the fruit of a life, arrests me. I let many things pass, which were blatantly anti-Christian, even during church gatherings. This should have alerted me, but, on the same basis as everyone else, wrongly, I excused him.

Wow... what a great thread this turned out to be. When I started it I wondered if I would get even one response to it. Usually quotes from someone else dont generate much interest.Anyway... let me comment briefly on the following:Concerning who we separate from, we must remember to receive the brother who differs with us on minor doctrineThere are those among us who apparently view the doctrine of salvation to be a "minor" doctrine. (It is the most major doctrine to me) Remember when Pope John Paul died a few months ago? Naturally the discussion on this site moved in that direction. There were those of us who stood up and said "The Catholic Church does not teach Biblical salvation, but rather a false gospel". Then there were those who stood and said "No, they are our brothers and sisters!"Point being... what do you consider "minor" doctrines?I do agree with your statement about minor doctrines, just asking "where do we draw the line?"Krispy

Krispy,letsgetbusy's point was about minor doctrine, wasn't it? It appears there are two things going on here. One is that those who preach should abide by a scriptural standard - which perhaps can be pared down to what Paul preached at Mars Hill in Acts 17, for a Gentile audience and something more like Peter's first sermon for a Jewish audience. And there are things about hearers and seekers, which render them more or less liable to follow an erroneous system. It still falls to preachers who see error, to warn their flock. And to sheep, to hear the voice of the Shepherd for themselves, and follow Him, despite what they may be hearing from the pulpit.Maybe definitions of doctrine are less important to sheep?When discussing the Roman Catholic Church, isn't it necessary to make a clear distinction between the religio-political system which it fosters, consciously, and the private devotional experience of some believers who do know the Lord because He has revealed Himself to them despite their seeking Him from within an outward adherence to that organisation? I acknowledge there are many who are are prevented from knowing Him by their adherence to that system, who could only meet the Lord if they were delivered from it. But, there are those of us from protestant backgrounds who were just as in need of deliverance from the 'religion' with which we grew up, who needed to distance ourselves from any dead practices.

Hey y'all.I'm following along with ya's. (Ain't left ya:) You guys know how I feel about Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Exegesis, CONTEXT,,, "Sound Doctrine" (Paul saying to Timothy & Titus style & Peter and John, etc. and JESUS on the absolute need/necessity for sound/true/pure Doctrine.) and JOHN 16:13...But I haven't posted here (not because I'm not very interested how it goes) but because y'all are doing such a swell job here, and to be truthful, I'm sorta old fashioned, as 'some' would say.There's some sort of "fine line" on 1Ti 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." And I'm trying to respond, when no guys do first, like on the "snakes & poison" thread.When I see a "0 posts", like "no replies" on a thread, up for a day or so, then I'll answer a question from a guy. Ya know what I mean ?Or if a brother is "standing alone" on an issue I think is important to merit support or something like that. Or just can't help but want to back up the topic or something. (?)I dunno, like I said, it's a "fine-line" and I like Elisabeth Elliott's point of view on 1Ti 2:12 and trying to follow that line as best as I can.But, Mostly I see Forums as just a place to "share", so I try to see it that way and not that I or others are trying to "teach". Ya know ?But at the risk of being "egged", I don't care for having 'Woman Moderators'. (Duck Annie-here comes the eggs now).That is "usurping authority over men", in my eyez anywayz. I've seen on other Forums, what happens with female mod.s and it wasn't/ain't pretty, so to speak.Well, "Contend earnestly for the faith."Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. Tit 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine ...(Quoting the Bible ain't 1Tim2:12 :-) )

Yes, we need to stand firm in the truth, but we also have to acknowledge that just maybe those who are deceived are really and truly brothers and sisters in Christ and it's His will that we be gentle, longsuffering and willing to teach in that Gentleness and allow God to open eyes and hearts when He sees fit.There is a difference between a person coming to Christ, and led to believe their sexual behaviour is not reckoned of interest or import to God, (so they don't know it's wrong, don't repent, think it's ok to continue, or, the sin is encouraged),(?ERROR by omission) and a fellow Christian being unwilling to condemn one who is struggling to give up such a specifically named sin, after their profession of faith. It is pretty easy these days for a lot of other (sexual) behaviour to get under the Church's radar, because it has become ok for preachers to not read out parts of the Old Testament where these things are condemned without reservation. It may be considered unsuitable for a Sunday (morning)! This way, some things are never addressed with the earnestness they were included in the word and the church as a group is not made to think about them. Those who don't read too well or who have no other way to learn God's views, also are deprived of hearing His reasoning.

When discussing the Roman Catholic Church, isn't it necessary to make a clear distinction between the religio-political system which it fosters, consciously, and the private devotional experience of some believers who do know the Lord because He has revealed Himself to them despite their seeking Him from within an outward adherence to that organisation? I acknowledge there are many who are are prevented from knowing Him by their adherence to that system, who could only meet the Lord if they were delivered from it. But, there are those of us from protestant backgrounds who were just as in need of deliverance from the 'religion' with which we grew up, who needed to distance ourselves from any dead practices. Oh yes... I certainly agree with this. But the key fruit would be the distancing. I fail to understand how someone could be a born again spirit filled believer, and continue partaking of the mass. But thats not for me to judge, that is between them and God. I dont spend a lot of time worrying about that. We all have a lot of recovering to do... look at my post on the Cliche's and Concepts thread.Krispy

Paul's objective ultimately was not shunning to retaliate, but shunning to bring to repentance and restoration. While this is true when it concerns someone in the church who is in sin... I completely disagree with you that it has to do with heretics. This certainly was not Paul's objective as it applies to this topic. Paul's objective was that believers in Christ would not be deceived. It was to protect the believers... not to win the deceivers.It's like poisonious cleaning solutions in your house... you keep them away from children at all costs. Thats what Paul was doing. There is nothing in scripture that indicates Paul's intentions was to teach heretics anything by shunning them.When it came to sin in the church, there were steps that were taken before the memeber was kicked out. There are NO steps taken before refusing to receive a heretics. None. We are to have nothing to do with them... period.Certainly we pray for them, but we also protect ourselves from them, and put up walls against them.Krispy

I fail to understand how someone could be a born again spirit filled believer, and continue partaking of the mass. But thats not for me to judge, that is between them and God.Sympathy with you here, but, without a knowledge of the Lord and His Nature, they may be disadvantaged in recognising error. God can and does lead them out, but it's a process. Also, if you met the Lord in a certain church, you're not immediately open to think of all that's wrong with it, but, as you grow, it does dawn on you that something's missing, or downright out of order!

Sympathy with you here, but, without a knowledge of the Lord and His Nature, they may be disadvantaged in recognising error. God can and does lead them out, but it's a process. Also, if you met the Lord in a certain church, you're not immediately open to think of all that's wrong with it, but, as you grow, it does dawn on you that something's missing, or downright out of order!Absolutely, and I understand this. This is why it is so important that believers go to the instruction manual that God has provided for us... the Bible. A true believer will have a hunger for truth and for God's Word, which are one in the same. As they read His Word it wont take too long before they see the problems with the RCC system... and eventually will be faced with a decision. I understand also that it can be very emotional for people to leave that system because of friends and family that can turn their backs on them, and also the whole ex-communication involved. It's tough. But Jesus said that if we follow Him, we must count the cost. Nothing can come between Him and us... including mother and father.I think sometimes I come across as cut and dry and not very sympathetic toward things. But thats not true. I do understand the emotional aspects of leaving something like the RCC behind. I know a lot of people who have done it, and still struggle with a certain amount of "faith plus works" in walking out their salvation years after leaving that system.Believe it or not, our closest friends are Catholics. Not the easter/christmas variety either... they go to mass 3 times a week, etc etc. Very faithful to the point where they actually impress me. But we dont have "fellowship" with them in a spiritual sense. It will be interesting, because like us they homeschool and this year my wife and the Catholic mom are going to be doing a science course together with our kids and theirs... and the course is very much evangelical. It discusses salvation espeically... so maybe this will be the opportunity we have been looking for to show them the truth. Normally we dont go there. They shut the door on any discussions that might "deceive" their children away from the RCC.Our kids share their Christian music with their kids... and recently I let their 17 year old son borrow my set of Keith Green CD's. However, the parents listened them first, and wouldnt allow him to listen. Too much truth, I guess. And what does that say about CCM as a whole? It's ok to listen to most CCM... but not someone like Keith Green? Hmmm... it's kinda made me re-examine the CCM my kids are listening to. I always listen to an artist before my kids are allowed to, and on the surface I thought it was pretty good. But when someone like Keith Green is rejected because he spoke the truth boldly, but others are accepted... is it because they dont speak enough truth?Krispy

While looking for specks, don't overlook the motes.It is of the fallen nature to see with clarity when viewing the "outward" appearance of others, but the view of our own hearts remains cloaked in a cloud of obscurity.We often tend to hold others to a very high standard, while we have certain "allowances" for ourselves. In other words, we have a different measure for others than we do for ourselves. By what Jesus said, we are decieving ourselves, not others. Jesus said the same measure we use to measure others, this same measure will be used by God to measure ourselves.I'm not picking on anyone here. However, if someone is continually disecting what others preach, without imparting truth and light from their own heart and ministry, I am put on guard much more than if I hear confusion in the pulpit. Each one of us will rise and fall on the merit of the walk we trod. Yes we should now be mature enough to recognize error. But we should also be mature enough to teach sound doctrine ourselves. If we are not yet teachers, we had better withhold the criticism.What profits most, watching national ministers like a hawk and pointing out "error" according to our own understanding, or seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, being filled to such fullness that His goodness, His mercy, His love just spills out on everything we do until everything around us is wet with His Spirit? I as a christian am not responsible for other church attendees who refuse to pick up a knife and fork and feed themselves. Their appetites are carnal, they walk after the flesh, and nothing will satisfy them like error does. They are greedy for power and position, comfort, and pleasure, but the cross they know not of. They have the same opportunity as you and I do, to open God's Word prayerfully and ask the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into all truth. But they are too busy with being busy with things that satisfy the flesh to hear from God for themselves. They have a close relationship with "church", but they know not God. Therefore they are not led by the Holy Spirit, but by these wolves in sheeps clothing, and their own passion to satisfy the lust within themselves. They don't even blate to sound the alarm.My theology is quite simple. If the shed blood of Jesus can't make me right with God, I am forever lost and doomed. If I have to depend on "me" for a single thing, I can be sure that I will fail somehow. After 30 years or so of handling the truth of God's Word, I am only now beginning to appreciate the simplicity of Paul when he so joyfully proclaimed that He preached only Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. For the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. Alleluia. Allelua. Oh God forgive me a sinner, cleanse me, save me. For without Jesus to redeem me, I am without hope. Just some of my thoughts, I appreciate yours. God bless you all as you go on with Him.broken and spilled out,for the love of You Jesus,my own special treasurelavished on theeOh God I have nothing to offer or add to You.I acknowledge before You and all menThat without the Your Redeemer, I am hopelessly lost. In spite of all my best efforts, I yet fail and fail again. Even though I often recognize the entrapments set before me, I walk into them again and again, disgusted with myself. If there is any hope in my own works, I am then the worst of the hopeless. Jesus and His shed blood for me oh God, is all that I have. My faith this day, is that His blood is not only all I need, but it is more than enough. Glory to God. Glory to God. Glory to God. Alleluia. I worship You oh Lord. The groanings in my heart oh Lord come from deploring the wickedness of my old man. I'm so glad, he has been crucified with Christ Jesus and to You no longer exists. I so regret all the opportunities that I had to represent your kingdom in truth and light but instead, pleased my old man and it's wickedness. I presented me and what I wanted, instead of Jesus and what He wants. Of those who have failed in obedience here oh God, surely none have failed more than I. Therefore, I have only the cross to cling too. The shed blood of Your Son Jesus is all that I have to keep me going. If there was ever a man alive who needed saving, I am he oh God. Please save me. Never let there be a moment go by that I don't realize that none of my works are of any value to place my hope in. Help me to ever be aware that Jesus is my all in all. I have only one thing that I know for certain to find hope in...and that is Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Without Him, I would be nothingWithout Him, I'd surely failWithout Him, I would be driftinglike a ship, without any sail.Oh Jesus, my JesusDo you know Him todayPlease don't turn Him awayOh Jesus, my Jesus Without Him, how lost, I would be......Without Him, how lost, I would be,Lahry