Thanks for this thought-provoking post, Michael. What about someone who promotes one false doctrine, but the rest seems to be orthodox? However they spend a lot of time promoting their pet subject.
One I'm thinking of is annihilationism, which seems to be contradicted by Jesus and the writer of Revelation, at the least.
I don't think of annihilationism as false teaching in the NT sense, though it may be false.
Likewise, I don't think of young earth creationism as false teaching as such, though I think it is deeply damaging to people's understanding of the Bible.
Of course, a pet subject may become an instrument of false teaching by extreme and distorted emphasis.
“… There seems however to be an immoral content to the teaching of these false prophets – as Peter goes on, it seems that debauchery is the result of what they teach:
For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.
It is quite specific: these false teachers are open in the immorality and in their lust for sex and money. …”
With respect, Michael, I don’t think the text, or its context, supports your assertion that these teachers are “**open** in [their] immorality and in their lust for sex and power”.
Or that the “immoral content to [their] teaching” is at all public.
We need only to read Christa Brown’s accounts, to say nothing of the hundreds of other accounts of survivors of sexual abuse by pastors in the SBC and other evangelical denominations, to learn that these men habitually operate by vehemently denouncing immorality from their public platforms while simultaneously convincing their individual victims privately that their abuse is God’s will for them.
And yet I would argue that the New Testament’s teachings on this subject, which you’ve so helpfully outlined, make it clear that it’s not a case of straightforward hypocrisy, or of “moral failure” by otherwise good guys.
The fruit-and-tree metaphor, for one thing, makes it clear that when we observe bad fruit, we are to examine the origin and nature of the whole phenomenon, and reassess it if we’d previously thought it was good.
There’s no place in orthodox Christian teaching for any concept of a good tree producing evil fruit.
Thank you Michael! I think perhaps I’ve been enculturated to believe that I’m acting with temerity when I speak into these conversations. I shall keep trying to shake that off :)
While I absolutely agree about the phenomenon of hidden sexual abuse...
in 2 Peter, it does seem to be the content of what these teachers teach - they make appeal to the lustful desires of their audience (which could be for money and power as well as sex)? That was what I was trying to point out.
Yes, but not necessarily in a bleedin obvious way! Peter’s use of a verb like entice/seduce suggests to me an element of deception (and we know from elsewhere in the NT that deception and disguise are the essence of the devil’s work.
Thinking about it more today, I think the key might be to have a holistic approach to our understanding of “tree” and “fruit” — so, if a pastor is guilty of sexual abuse/immorality, we don’t decide whether that pastor is a “false teacher” or not based *only* on his public teachings about *sexual morality* and whether *these* teachings of his are evidently false and self-serving. It could be that his public teaching on this subject is exemplary, according to our understanding of Scripture and Christian ethics — perhaps even particularly strict and/or fervently worded!
But I would say that if you look at the whole picture of that pastor’s public teachings, you’ll almost certainly find at least one other aspect of them that *is* false and self-serving — and it will most likely be in the area of power, authority, leadership, submission, etc. Because, as we see in the letters to the Corinthians, as well as in the stories of Christa Brown and other contemporary victims, such false teachers understand power well enough (better than the children of light, as Jesus said) to know that once they can invoke their own will as divine, they can then twist and distort clear scriptural teachings to entrap the young and naive in their sphere of influence.
(BTW — I think this represents one of the problematic consequences of splitting sex and sexual morality questions off from considerations of power, in our subculture.
It leads to this kind of failure to see that our guys whose deliberate and ongoing sin is exposed *aren’t* good guys with the right doctrine who fell prey to a scheme of Satan — rather, they are cunning deceivers who know the value of adopting and being the loudest to proclaim the right doctrine, for the utility of the cover and access to victims it opens up for them.)
Hi Michael: given that I am not promoting debauchery, lust, or myths, I wonder if you would regard me as a false teacher?
Since you once told me when I asked about the historical veracity of the Exodus as described in the Bible, “I preach as if it happened,” does this make both of us false teachers?
I have scrupulously researched this and many other events described in the Bible, using hundreds of academic sources.
I seek the truth and pray that God would guide me in my, often tentative conclusions.
I have received only a couple of rebukes over the last 20 years after always seeking
Are you prepared to agree to my statement about the Exodus? That it did not happen as described in the Bible.
This is the conclusion of the archaeology and literary critique in just about every academic faculty I have consulted. The deniers are generally evangelical or fundamentalist institutions. They do so because they are inerrantists.
Instead of replying to this you ask me to affirm the Nicene creed, or parts of it.
I chant it at least once a week. I will chant it this evening.
I certainly do not practice debauchery and I feel somewhat surprised by your question about financial gain? I have been a teacher and headmaster. I was paid well. I did not exploit anyone. Perhaps you were asking generally, including a significant number of so-called evangelicals.
Having responded to your questions, please respond to mine.
The questions were not about you specifically, but about the general test for false teaching as per the NT. My issue is not what I say false teaching is, but what the NT does.
I don't think you qualify in NT terms as a false teacher. That doesn't mean that everything you say is true!
Thanks for this thought-provoking post, Michael. What about someone who promotes one false doctrine, but the rest seems to be orthodox? However they spend a lot of time promoting their pet subject.
One I'm thinking of is annihilationism, which seems to be contradicted by Jesus and the writer of Revelation, at the least.
I don't think of annihilationism as false teaching in the NT sense, though it may be false.
Likewise, I don't think of young earth creationism as false teaching as such, though I think it is deeply damaging to people's understanding of the Bible.
Of course, a pet subject may become an instrument of false teaching by extreme and distorted emphasis.
Thanks very much, Michael.
“… There seems however to be an immoral content to the teaching of these false prophets – as Peter goes on, it seems that debauchery is the result of what they teach:
For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.
It is quite specific: these false teachers are open in the immorality and in their lust for sex and money. …”
With respect, Michael, I don’t think the text, or its context, supports your assertion that these teachers are “**open** in [their] immorality and in their lust for sex and power”.
Or that the “immoral content to [their] teaching” is at all public.
We need only to read Christa Brown’s accounts, to say nothing of the hundreds of other accounts of survivors of sexual abuse by pastors in the SBC and other evangelical denominations, to learn that these men habitually operate by vehemently denouncing immorality from their public platforms while simultaneously convincing their individual victims privately that their abuse is God’s will for them.
And yet I would argue that the New Testament’s teachings on this subject, which you’ve so helpfully outlined, make it clear that it’s not a case of straightforward hypocrisy, or of “moral failure” by otherwise good guys.
The fruit-and-tree metaphor, for one thing, makes it clear that when we observe bad fruit, we are to examine the origin and nature of the whole phenomenon, and reassess it if we’d previously thought it was good.
There’s no place in orthodox Christian teaching for any concept of a good tree producing evil fruit.
BTW Elise:
you don't need to say 'with respect' - I already respect you, and I always assume that where you come from is a place of mutual respect. :-)
Thank you Michael! I think perhaps I’ve been enculturated to believe that I’m acting with temerity when I speak into these conversations. I shall keep trying to shake that off :)
While I absolutely agree about the phenomenon of hidden sexual abuse...
in 2 Peter, it does seem to be the content of what these teachers teach - they make appeal to the lustful desires of their audience (which could be for money and power as well as sex)? That was what I was trying to point out.
Elise Christian
Elise Christian
just now
Yes, but not necessarily in a bleedin obvious way! Peter’s use of a verb like entice/seduce suggests to me an element of deception (and we know from elsewhere in the NT that deception and disguise are the essence of the devil’s work.
Thinking about it more today, I think the key might be to have a holistic approach to our understanding of “tree” and “fruit” — so, if a pastor is guilty of sexual abuse/immorality, we don’t decide whether that pastor is a “false teacher” or not based *only* on his public teachings about *sexual morality* and whether *these* teachings of his are evidently false and self-serving. It could be that his public teaching on this subject is exemplary, according to our understanding of Scripture and Christian ethics — perhaps even particularly strict and/or fervently worded!
But I would say that if you look at the whole picture of that pastor’s public teachings, you’ll almost certainly find at least one other aspect of them that *is* false and self-serving — and it will most likely be in the area of power, authority, leadership, submission, etc. Because, as we see in the letters to the Corinthians, as well as in the stories of Christa Brown and other contemporary victims, such false teachers understand power well enough (better than the children of light, as Jesus said) to know that once they can invoke their own will as divine, they can then twist and distort clear scriptural teachings to entrap the young and naive in their sphere of influence.
(BTW — I think this represents one of the problematic consequences of splitting sex and sexual morality questions off from considerations of power, in our subculture.
It leads to this kind of failure to see that our guys whose deliberate and ongoing sin is exposed *aren’t* good guys with the right doctrine who fell prey to a scheme of Satan — rather, they are cunning deceivers who know the value of adopting and being the loudest to proclaim the right doctrine, for the utility of the cover and access to victims it opens up for them.)
Hi Michael: given that I am not promoting debauchery, lust, or myths, I wonder if you would regard me as a false teacher?
Since you once told me when I asked about the historical veracity of the Exodus as described in the Bible, “I preach as if it happened,” does this make both of us false teachers?
I have scrupulously researched this and many other events described in the Bible, using hundreds of academic sources.
I seek the truth and pray that God would guide me in my, often tentative conclusions.
I have received only a couple of rebukes over the last 20 years after always seeking
critical comment.
Am I on the path to false teaching?
Where is truth?
V
My purpose here was to define 'false teacher' in New Testament terms. A false teacher is not just a person with whom you disagree!
In the OT, false prophets served idols, promoted immorality, exploited the people, and ... made prophecies that didn't come true.
In the NT, the particular issue is Christology.
My questions would be:
- do you deny that Jesus came in the flesh? (ie, the incarnation)
- do you deny that he rose from the dead bodily? )(ie, the resurrection)
- do you deny that he will return? (ie, the second coming)
and then the character test:
- do you promote or practice debauchery? (It is amazing how often this is a 'tell' for false teaching - see the sexual scandals that bedevil churches)
- do you exploit God's people for financial gain?
Thank you for your reply.
However, you seemed to have missed my point.
Are you prepared to agree to my statement about the Exodus? That it did not happen as described in the Bible.
This is the conclusion of the archaeology and literary critique in just about every academic faculty I have consulted. The deniers are generally evangelical or fundamentalist institutions. They do so because they are inerrantists.
Instead of replying to this you ask me to affirm the Nicene creed, or parts of it.
I chant it at least once a week. I will chant it this evening.
I certainly do not practice debauchery and I feel somewhat surprised by your question about financial gain? I have been a teacher and headmaster. I was paid well. I did not exploit anyone. Perhaps you were asking generally, including a significant number of so-called evangelicals.
Having responded to your questions, please respond to mine.
If you wish to be private, send me an email.
vcecilbranson@gmail.com
I am not pursuing the red herring.
The questions were not about you specifically, but about the general test for false teaching as per the NT. My issue is not what I say false teaching is, but what the NT does.
I don't think you qualify in NT terms as a false teacher. That doesn't mean that everything you say is true!
It’s hard to avoid an enormous red herring! But you have.
Why not engage with one of the most controversial issues in Biblical and archaeological studies?
Would you be sacked?
This becomes a rhetorical question if you prefer silence.
V
Sacked? No.