Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr24/crj0041a.zip/CRJ0041A.TXT

Text File | 1995-02-03 | 41KB | 826 lines

----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute.  It may not be altered or edited in any way.  It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge.  All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute").  This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold.  This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.

If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit:  Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy. Part One: The Case For
Doctrinal Discernment" (an article from the Christian Research
Journal, Summer 1990, page 28) by Robert M. Bowman.
   The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.

-------------

    For most Christians today, the challenge of learning how to
discern orthodox from heretical doctrine has apparently not been
faced. Either they treat doctrine as minimally important and so
regard charges of "heresy" as rude and unloving, or they treat
doctrine as all-important and so regard anyone who disagrees with
them in the slightest as a heretic. In short, most believers seem
to think either that there are almost no heretics or that almost
everybody outside their own little group is a heretic.

    The cause of doctrinal discernment, then, is in serious
jeopardy. Although anticult and discernment ministries are
mushrooming everywhere, many of them operate on the basis of an
excessively narrow understanding of orthodoxy. Consequently, such
groups are charged deservedly with "heresy hunting" and discredit
the practice of doctrinal discernment. At the other extreme -- and
often overreacting to such heresy hunters -- are those within the
Christian community who reject any warnings of heresy among
professing Christians.

    In this two-part article I will attempt to set forth a balanced
approach to the issue of doctrinal heresy. In this first part I
will present a biblical case for the practice of discerning
orthodox from heretical doctrines. In the second part I will offer
guidelines for doctrinal discernment.

    In order to make this article as useful as possible, I will
avoid making references to specific heretical or suborthodox
groups, doctrines, and practices. This is so it may be read without
conflict by persons in religious groups which discourage reading
literature that criticizes their beliefs. In addition, I will avoid
quoting and citing sources other than the Bible so that what I say
can stand as much as possible on its own. A bibliography of
recommended reading will be provided at the end of Part Two.

    My own theological convictions are those of Protestant
evangelicalism. Most of what I have to say in this article,
however, is compatible with other Christian traditions as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Glossary of Key Terms*

    *aberrational:* Off-center or in error in some important way,
such that the doctrine or practice should be rejected and those who
accept it held to be sinning, even though they may very well be
Christian. Also called *aberrant.*

    *apostasy:* A falling away or departure from a previously
maintained orthodox position (as in certain denominations which
once held to orthodoxy but have rejected it). Adj.: *apostate.*

    *biblical:* Agreeing with or faithful to the teaching of the
Bible. Whatever is contrary to its teaching is *unbiblical,* though
this word is usually used only when the biblical teaching violated
is clear and of vital importance.

    *cult:* A religious group originating as a heretical sect and
maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: *cultic* (may be
used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status).

    *denomination:* A religious body originating as a Christian
movement or sect and generally classified as a Christian body
regardless of its doctrinal orthodoxy.

    *discern:* Identify the true nature of a spirit, doctrine,
practice, or group; distinguish truth from error, extreme error
from slight error, the divine from the human and the demonic.

    *doctrine:* Content of teaching intended to be accepted and
believed as truth.

    *dogma:* Doctrine which a church or sect expects all its
members to accept in order to remain in good standing; or, one
which a church or sect expects its members to accept simply on the
church's or sect's authority. Adj.: *dogmatic.*

    *excommunication:* A church disciplinary action in which a
person who refuses to repent of promoting heretical views, or of
engaging in gross sin, is no longer accepted as a member of the
church. Such a person may not participate in the ordinances of the
church, may not teach or minister in any way, and in extreme cases
may be asked to refrain from attending church meetings.

    *heresy:* Doctrine which is erroneous in such a way that
Christians must divide themselves as a church from all who teach or
accept it; those adhering to heresy are assumed to be lost,
although Christians are unable to make definitive judgments on this
matter. The opposite of orthodoxy. Adj.: *heretical.*

    *heterodox:* Differing from orthodox teaching in some
significant way; may occur in varying degrees.

    *orthodoxy:* The body of essential biblical teachings. Those
who embrace them should be accepted as Christians. The opposite of
heresy. Adj.: *orthodox.*

    *orthopraxis:* Correct practice required of anyone who would be
regarded as a Christian.

    *schism:* A division within a religious group, especially one
which divides Christians from one another. Adj.: *schismatic.*

    *sect:* A religious group formed as the result of schism,
especially one which is fairly small and of relatively recent
origin. Adj.: sectarian.

    *sound:* Agreeing with and faithful to biblical teaching and to
orthodoxy beyond a bare minimum, such that Christians may be
encouraged to continue in this way. Contrasted with aberrational,
which refers to orthodox teaching or practice which is only barely
so. Its opposite, *unsound,* may be used to express degrees of
deficiency in soundness.

    *suborthodox:* Less than orthodox, yet not explicitly contrary
to orthodoxy.

    *unorthodox:* Departing from orthodoxy in some measure, though
not necessarily embracing explicit heresy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


*THE NECESSITY OF DOCTRINE*

    The words "doctrine" and "doctrinal" have become pejorative
terms for many -- like "indoctrinate" or "dogma."  (For definitions
of these and other words, _see_ the Glossary accompanying this
article.) Even many evangelical Christians, who do affirm certain
doctrines, pay little attention to doctrine beyond a certain
minimum.

    Of the many objections to Christian doctrine, five may be
singled out as especially influential. Doctrine is often said to be
(1) irrelevant, (2) impractical, (3) divisive, (4) unspiritual, and
(5) unknowable. The importance of doctrine can best be shown by
presenting positive answers to these charges.


*The Relevance of Doctrine*

    In popular thought doctrine has to do with insignificant
matters that are irrelevant to most people. Although doctrine can
be trivialized, Christian doctrine is extremely relevant to all
people. Christian doctrine (i.e., the teachings of Scripture)
answers the fundamental questions of life -- questions such as who
God is, who we are, and why we are here (Ps. 8:3-8; Heb. 11:6). How
we answer these questions decisively shapes the way we live. To
ignore them is to go through life blithely unaware of what is
really important.

    Doctrine is particularly important because a sound proclamation
of the gospel of salvation depends on an accurate understanding of
what that gospel is, what salvation is, and how salvation is
received (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 4:16). Nothing less than our eternal
future depends on it. I do not mean to imply that we must all
become theologians and experts on every fine point of doctrine to
be saved. But the church as a whole must take great care that it
faithfully proclaims the _true_ gospel, and every Christian has a
stake in the matter. I will have more to say on this point a little
later.

    It is true that some doctrinal issues are less important than
others. One of the most crucial functions of Christian theology,
and one of the most neglected, is to sort out the really important
-- the _essential_ -- from the less important and even the
irrelevant (cf. Rom. 14).

    Thus, handled properly, doctrine is very relevant to human
life, and pursuit of sound doctrine should therefore be the concern
of every person at least to some extent.


*The Practicality of Doctrine*

    It is common in our day to assert that practice is more
important than theory -- that _orthopraxis_ (doing right) is more
important than _orthodoxy_ (believing right). But this assertion is
itself a theory -- something people think and then say, and then
try to put into practice. The fact is that what we _think_
determines what we _do._ Thus, doctrine -- as something we think --
affects what we do, and so has practical significance.

    It should be recognized, of course, that the practical effects
of doctrine have limits.  Doctrine does not always or solely
determine our actions, since people often act on desires or
concerns contrary to the doctrines they hold. For example, someone
may believe as doctrine that lying is wrong, but selfish or
prideful thoughts may take precedence over doctrinal convictions
and lead the person to lie. The practicality of doctrine is found
not in determining our practice, but in _informing_ it -- in giving
us the knowledge with which, by God's grace, we can do the right
thing.

    The point is that we should regard _both_ knowledge _and_
practice as important. Ultimately, what is important is that a
person truly live in obedient fellowship with God and experience
His love; in that sense, _of course_ practice is more important
than doctrine. But God Himself has made it clear that He uses
doctrine to further that practical goal in our lives (1 Tim.
1:3-7; 2 Tim. 3:15-17).

    The practical importance of Christian doctrine, then, is great
indeed. Doctrine enables us to develop a realistic view of the
world and of ourselves, without which we are doomed to ineffectual
living (Matt. 22:23-33; Rom. 12:3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). Doctrine can
protect us from believing falsehoods which upset people's faith or
lead to destructive behavior (1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Tim. 2:18; Tit.
1:11). Doctrine also prepares us to minister to others (Eph.
4:11-12).


*The Unity of Doctrine*

    Perhaps the most common criticism people voice about doctrine
is that it divides people. And indeed, doctrine -- in the history
of Christianity as in other religions -- has often been allowed to
divide people in reprehensible ways. But in a crucial sense
doctrine is intended to _unite_ people.

    While it is true that doctrine inevitably divides people, this
is not something that can be avoided. People _think_ different
things, and they _do_ different things on the basis of their
differing beliefs. What is undesirable, however, is that doctrine
should divide people who ought to be together, or that divisions
should be expressed in wrong ways. That is, doctrine should not
divide faithful Christians from one another, preventing them from
having fellowship together. Nor should doctrine lead people to hate
or mistreat people who hold different doctrines than they do.

    The Bible commands Christians to divide themselves from false
teachers or heretics on the basis of doctrinal factors (Rom. 16:17;
2 John 9-11). In doing so, they are to _stand together in unity_
against heresy (Eph. 4:12-13). Thus, taking a stand against heresy
can promote genuine Christian unity.

    As Christians mature together in their understanding of
biblical doctrine, they become more united as their thinking
becomes shaped more and more along the same lines (1 Cor. 1:10).
Moreover, a balanced understanding of doctrine can help Christians
divided by doctrinal differences to be reconciled as they learn
which points are minor or unsound and which are not (1 Tim. 6:3-5;
Tit. 1:9-14). It turns out that shallow understanding of doctrine
easily promotes disunity among Christians, while deepening
understanding of doctrine tends to foster greater Christian unity.


*The Spirituality of Doctrine*

    Although some people regard the pursuit of doctrinal accuracy
as an unspiritual intellectualism, sound doctrine is actually very
important to sound spirituality. Christian doctrine teaches us
about God, His purposes and will for our lives, what we are like
spiritually apart from God's grace, how God's grace changes us --
in short, everything we need to know in order to pursue true
spirituality (Rom. 6:17-18; 1 Tim. 1:5, 10; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Doctrine provides external, objective controls for our inward,
subjective experiences so that we may discern genuine spirituality
from fraudulent, artificial, or even demonic spirituality (Col.
2:22-23; 1 John 4:1-3).

    In pursuing an accurate understanding of Christian doctrine, we
are fulfilling one aspect of God's greatest commandment -- that we
love God with all our _minds_ (Matt. 22:37). This commandment
surely implies that we should take great care and make every effort
to conform our beliefs and convictions to the truth (cf. Rom. 12:2)
-- and this means doctrine.

    Something should also be said here about the relationship
between _doctrinal_ discernment and _spiritual_ discernment. In 1
Corinthians Paul speaks more than once about spiritual discernment.
The spiritual person discerns all things, including the things of
the Spirit of God, which can only be discerned spiritually (1 Cor.
2:14-15). The members of the congregation were to exercise
discernment concerning the prophecies that were delivered in the
church (1 Cor. 14:29). And some Christians are specially gifted to
discern evil spirits from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10). On the
basis of these and other passages, some Christians have thought
that discernment never has anything to do with the exercise of the
intellect. In their view, one discerns between good and evil in
doctrinal as well as practical matters simply by listening to the
inner voice of the Holy Spirit.

    By no means do I wish to disparage the work of the Holy Spirit
in giving Christians discernment. Certainly all Christians must
depend on the Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds that they may
clearly see the difference between good and evil, truth and error.
And many Christians who are ill-equipped to study doctrine in depth
are remarkably discerning.

    It would be a mistake, however, to pit spiritual discernment
against doctrinal discernment. For one thing, the view that
discernment is purely spiritual is itself a doctrine. Moreover,
such a sharp separation of doctrine and spirituality assumes a
dichotomy between the mind and the human spirit. Since this
assumption is also a doctrine, the whole argument is
self-defeating. There are also biblical reasons to reject a
dichotomy of mind and spirit (which I will not elaborate here).

    For another thing, the Bible also encourages Christians to use
their knowledge of Christian doctrine in discerning truth from
error and good from evil. The classic example of this is 1 John
4:1-3, where John commands us not to believe everyone claiming to
be speaking by God's Spirit, but instead to apply a doctrinal test
(belief in the full humanity of Jesus Christ) to those making such
claims. Similarly, in 2 John 9 we are told to watch ourselves and
not be deceived by anyone who "does not remain in the doctrine of
Christ." In 1 Corinthians, Paul not only speaks of _spiritual_
discernment but also presents _doctrinal_ arguments in answer to
the heretical belief that "there is no resurrection of the dead" (1
Cor. 15:12-19).

    Rather than pitting spiritual and doctrinal discernment against
one another, we should see them as two sides or aspects of the same
activity. True spirituality includes a submission of the mind to
the teachings of the Bible, and sound doctrine includes the belief
that our knowledge of the truth is dependent on the illumination of
the Holy Spirit. Thus in true discernment at its best, the _whole_
Christian draws upon his God-given knowledge of biblical doctrine
in sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.


*The Knowability of Doctrine*

    Some people avoid studying Christian doctrine because they are
convinced it is too difficult or complex to grasp. While small
children, the mentally retarded, and certain others may be admitted
to be incapable of understanding doctrinal matters, the vast
majority of adults -- young and old -- are able to understand much
more than they have bothered to learn. Every individual is
responsible to acquire doctrinal knowledge as their mental
faculties, educational level, and opportunities allow.

    Scripture commands all Christians to learn doctrine. Generally,
removable _spiritual_ impediments -- not irremovable _intellectual_
ones -- prevent Christians from advancing in doctrinal
understanding (Heb. 5:11-14). Christ has given teachers to the
church to assist believers in learning doctrine (Eph. 4:11).
Obviously such teachers must master doctrine on a level beyond most
other Christians, but they do so for the purpose of imparting as
much truth as possible to the rest of the members of the body of
Christ.

    Sound doctrine is difficult enough to require honesty and
discipline, yet easy enough that -- with the exceptions mentioned
previously -- all who seek God's grace and commit themselves to the
task can learn it (2 Pet. 3:16-18).


*Doctrine and Salvation*

    In discussing the relevance of doctrine, I mentioned that a
person's salvation can depend to some extent on doctrinal
understanding. Since this point is so often contested in our day,
it deserves closer attention.

    Almost everybody who acknowledges Jesus Christ in some way will
agree that those who completely and explicitly reject Jesus Christ
are lost. Many people find it difficult, however, to believe that
some might sincerely think themselves to be following Jesus Christ
and yet, due to heretical belief, be lost. Jesus Himself promised,
"Seek, and you shall find" (Matt. 7:7); should not those who seek
for Christ find Him? And do not many sincere members of groups
which evangelicals label heretical truly want to find Christ? They
may read the Bible more studiously than many an evangelical church
member; they may express an ardent desire to know God and obey Him;
they may zealously proclaim the message of Christ as they have been
taught it. Are they not, therefore, seeking Christ, and will they
not, then, in accordance with His promise, find Christ? And if so,
how can salvation depend on doctrinal beliefs?

    These questions may be answered by keeping the following
biblical principles in mind.

    (1) _Not everyone who acknowledges Jesus as Lord will be
saved._ This follows directly from Jesus' own words in Matthew
7:21: Simply acknowledging that Jesus is Lord does not guarantee a
person's salvation. The acknowledgment might be mere lip service,
as demonstrated by refusal to obey Him as Lord (Luke 6:46). Or
someone might call Jesus "Lord" and not mean the same thing as what
the Bible means by it. This leads me to a second principle.

    (2) _Many who claim to acknowledge Jesus actually believe in
"another Jesus," and are either deceived or deceiving._ This
follows directly from 2 Corinthians 11:4. Many who speak of faith
in "Jesus" have an understanding of who and what Jesus is that
differs so much from reality that in truth they do not have faith
in the real Jesus at all. If a person thought Buddha was another
name for Moses, we would not normally consider him a Buddhist, no
matter how piously and moralistically he lived out his belief in
"Buddha." Similarly, someone who denies the biblical view of Christ
should not be identified as a Christian, no matter how religiously
he follows his belief.

    Some people who believe in "another Jesus" are no doubt
insincere, and Paul warns of "deceitful workers who disguise
themselves as apostles of Christ" (2 Cor. 11:13). I like to think
the best of people, even people with whom I have serious
disagreements. But I have become acquainted with a few persons
about whom I have had to conclude, reluctantly, that they are
simply liars. These people know on a conscious level that the
message they proclaim is false.

    On the other hand, some people, even members of Christian
churches, can be "led astray" (2 Cor. 11:3b) by such deceivers.
Thus, it is possible for sincere people, even people who were part
of the fellowship of true Christians, to be deceived into following
"another Jesus." Not that such people are perfectly innocent --
rather, they are like Eve who, though deceived by the serpent (2
Cor. 11:3a), was guilty of sin and held accountable by God (Gen.
3:1-6, 13-16).

    (3) _Those who are zealous in religious matters are not
necessarily saved._ In Romans 10:2 Paul says of his Jewish brethren
who rejected Jesus, "They have a zeal for God, but not in
accordance with knowledge." Zeal, of course, implies sincerity --
that is, the mental state of believing that what one is promoting
is based on truth. The Jews who rejected Jesus were for the most
part zealous, and therefore sincere in this sense -- but they were
still lost (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1). Their zeal was, in particular, for
a right standing with God -- but they sought it on the basis of
their own works, as if salvation was by works, rather than
receiving the righteousness which was available in Christ through
faith (Rom. 9:30--10:4).

    Matthew 23:15 addresses zeal of another kind -- zeal in seeking
converts. The Pharisees were extremely zealous in missionary work,
but all they succeeded in doing was leading more people into their
error. Zeal in witnessing or evangelizing does not indicate that a
religious group is God's people.

    (4) _No human being truly seeks for God unless God's Spirit
draws that person; therefore, those that appear to seek for God but
do not come in God's way are not seeking for God at all._ In Romans
3:11 Paul quotes Psalm 14:2 to the effect that "there is none who
seeks for God." Sin has so perverted the desires of all human
beings that none of us, by our own natural wishes, is looking for
God. This is because "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward
God" (Rom. 8:7). Of course, some people do seek for God, otherwise
God would not call upon us to seek Him (Isa. 55:6, etc.). But when
people seek God, it is only because God has first "sought" them and
drawn them toward Him by His grace (Luke 19:10; John 6:44; 15:16).

    When people therefore appear to be "seeking God" -- when they
study the Bible (2 Pet. 3:16), attend meetings, pray, change their
lifestyles, attempt to obey the commandments, even speak of their
love for God and Christ -- yet persist in worshipping a false God,
or honoring a false Christ, or following a false gospel (Gal.
1:7-9; 2 Cor. 11:4), we must conclude that they were not really
seeking _God._ Rather, they may have been seeking spiritual power,
or security, or peace of mind, or warm relationships, or knowledge,
or excitement, or anything other than simply God. And in saying
this, I am _not_ claiming that all genuine Christians on the other
hand have sought purely and simply after God. No, our testimony as
Christians must be that we were also following our own divergent
path when God sought us, stopped us in our way, and led us up a new
and narrow path leading to salvation in Jesus Christ (Matt. 7:13).

    (5) _Anyone who truly desires to know the truth about God and
His way of salvation above all else can and will be saved._ This is
the other side of the coin from the previous point. Jesus promised
that "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John
6:37). However, we must come to the _true_ Jesus on _His_ terms.
Judas came to the true Jesus, at least outwardly (actually, Judas
did not know who Jesus really was), but he did not come on Jesus'
terms and was consequently lost (John 17:12). The cost of
abandoning heresy is usually great -- the loss of friends, the
embarrassment of admitting error, the threat of the heretical
teachers that all who leave their teaching will be lost. But
salvation is available for anyone who by God's grace puts truth
(and the One who is truth) above these things.


*DEFINING HERESY AND ORTHODOXY*

    So far I have argued that we ought to distinguish between truth
and error in doctrine. Now I wish to address the question of
orthodoxy and heresy more directly. What is orthodox doctrine, what
is heretical doctrine, and what's the difference?


*Inadequate Approaches*

    It is tempting to say that whatever doctrine is biblical is
orthodox and whatever doctrine is not biblical is not orthodox. But
this is too simplistic. For example, assuming that only one of the
several views (there are at least four) on the Rapture is biblical,
it does not follow that the views that are not biblical are
therefore heretical. There are some doctrines which, while not in
agreement with the Bible, are not so wide of the mark that they
must be regarded as heretical.

    Another approach that has been taken is to measure doctrines by
the doctrinal confessions of some particular denomination. This is
fine so long as what is being determined is not orthodoxy but
confessional fidelity. That is, if someone wishes to be an ordained
minister of a particular denomination, that denomination is within
its rights to ask that such a person agree with its doctrines. If
someone does not (e.g., if someone disagrees with the
denomination's position on speaking in tongues or predestination),
then that person should not expect to be ordained in such a
denomination. Given the present diversity of denominations, this
should be expected.

    On the other hand, it is lamentable that the church has allowed
itself to be divided over nonessential issues. Thus, adherence to
a denomination's particular distinctives should not necessarily be
made the test of Christian orthodoxy. Of course, some of the
doctrinal stands taken by a denomination may be basic to orthodoxy
(e.g., a confession of the deity of Jesus Christ). In such cases,
the denomination's confession and orthodoxy coincide.

    What, then, should be the standard of orthodoxy? And how should
it be determined? Perhaps most troublesome: _Who_ should determine
the standard?

    Certainly I do not claim to have any particular authority to
determine by what standard orthodoxy shall be judged. I claim no
special anointing beyond that which all Christians have (1 John
2:20, 27). I make no claims to apostolic or prophetic authority. I
am not even an ordained minister. Who, then, am I to judge who _is_
and _is not_ orthodox? Who am I to call anyone a heretic?

    My answer to these questions is twofold. First, _I am a
Christian,_ and as such have a responsibility to avoid heresy. I
can hardly do so if I do not have some idea as to what heresy is.
Second, _I am a teacher,_ called by God to the ministry of teaching
my fellow Christians sound doctrine. That gives me no special
authority or mantle of divine sanction, and I would not want anyone
to assume that whatever I say is true. But it does mean that God
has given me a special responsibility, and if I am faithful He will
use me to guide other believers into a more complete and accurate
understanding of His truth. If I am truly faithful, those who are
open to God's truth will know that what I say is true -- not
because I say it, but simply because I have led them to see what
has always been in God's Word, the Bible.


*Toward Definitions*

    What, then, is orthodoxy, and what is heresy? First of all, I
wish to point out that the term "orthodoxy" is not in the Bible.
That does not mean that the concept itself is unbiblical, but that
we cannot read off its meaning from biblical texts.

    The words "heresy" and "heretic" _are_ in the Bible, and are
used in somewhat varying senses. The Jews called Christianity a
"heresy" (Acts 24:14), probably meaning they considered it a sect
under God's condemnation. But Paul referred to the various factions
among the Corinthian Christians as "heresies," that is, "divisions"
(1 Cor. 11:19). Here he seems to regard some of these divisions as
distinguishing true believers from false believers, but other
divisions as simply unfortunate expressions of sinful disunity
among Christians, without suggesting that all who belonged to these
different factions were lost. Elsewhere, though, Paul referred to
"heresies" or divisions as works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20) and said
that a "heretic" -- a man causing divisions in the church -- is
perverted and self-condemned (Tit. 3:10-11). Finally, Peter speaks
of destructive "heresies" in the sense of doctrines which deny
Christ the Lord (2 Pet. 2:1).

    From this survey it is evident that a "heresy" in biblical
terminology could be merely an unfortunate division among
Christians, but in a stricter sense is a divisive teaching or
practice destructive of genuine faith and deserving of
condemnation. The looser sense corresponds roughly to our modern
denominations, while the stricter sense applies most clearly to
groups which reject basic Christian doctrines and set themselves
apart from the historic church in its many forms. But a "heresy" in
the latter sense can have its start, at least, within the church.
Whenever heresies in this strict sense arise, Christians are called
to separate themselves from those who persist in holding them.

    We may therefore define "heresy" in the strict sense as _a
teaching or practice which compels true Christians to divide
themselves from those who hold it._ Note the difference here: a
"faction" or heresy in the looser sense is an unfortunate division
separating Christians from one another, and Christians are called
to do whatever they can to overcome these divisions (1 Cor. 1:10).
But a heresy in the stricter sense is a division separating
Christians from non-Christians (or, at best, from Christians who
are persisting in grave error), and Christians are called to draw
the line and refuse to have spiritual fellowship with those who
cross over it. This is not to say that Christians should not show
genuine love, compassion, and personal respect for heretics; too
often in church history "heretic" has been a hate-word.

    How, then, should we define "orthodox"? We might define it as
_whatever teachings and practices are sufficiently faithful to
Christian principles that Christians should accept as
fellow-Christians those who adhere to them._ To put it simply,
whatever religious teachings and practices are not heretical are
orthodox, and vice versa.

    Notice that we have not said that all members of churches which
teach heresy are lost. This is no more true than saying that all
who are members of churches which teach orthodoxy are saved. In
saying that people are heretics, or that they are following heresy,
we are not pronouncing judgment on their eternal souls. We _are_
saying that if they follow those heresies consistently, they will
certainly be lost. Conversely, in saying that someone is orthodox
we are not saying that they are necessarily true Christians with
the assurance of eternal life. We _are_ saying that if they follow
orthodox doctrine as the basis of their life (and thus trust in
Christ alone for right standing before God) they will be saved.


*Aberrational Christianity*

    It might seem that doctrinal discernment should be a fairly
cut-and-dried procedure of determining whether a doctrine is
orthodox or heretical. After all, we have defined orthodoxy and
heresy in such a way that they cover all possibilities. Either a
doctrine is such that those who hold it should be accepted as
Christians (in which case it is orthodox), or it is not (in which
case it is heretical). This might seem to imply a black-or-white
approach in which all doctrine is either completely orthodox or
completely heretical.

    Although doctrinal discernment would be a lot neater and
simpler if this were the case, unfortunately things are more
complicated -- in at least two distinct ways. First, a single
doctrine is never held in isolation from other doctrines, but
rather is always part of a system or network of beliefs held by a
person or group. And sometimes that system of beliefs includes many
doctrines which are orthodox as well as some which are heretical.
For example, a religious group might hold that the Bible is the
Word of God, that there is only one God, that Jesus was born of a
virgin and rose from the dead, and yet deny the deity of Jesus
Christ. Such a group's belief _system_ is heretical, even though it
contains many true beliefs. Moreover, a group's heretical beliefs
generally lead them to misunderstand or misapply even those true
beliefs they do confess, since the beliefs tend to be
interdependent and thus mutually affect one another. Thus, one of
the tasks of doctrinal discernment is to sort out which beliefs in
a heretical system are actually heretical, which are not, and how
the nonheretical beliefs are misapplied because of the heretical
system in which they are held.

    The second sort of complication to be noticed is that people
often hold conflicting beliefs. Because people are often
inconsistent, in some cases they may hold to orthodox beliefs but
also hold to beliefs that undermine or contradict their orthodox
beliefs. The difficulty presented in such cases is to sort out
whether the belief system is basically orthodox or not.

    For example, many professing Christian groups today confess
belief in one God, but also speak of human beings (usually
Christians in particular) as being in some sense "gods." This
verbal contradiction may or may not betray a real contradiction in
the substance of their beliefs. Making matters even more difficult
is the fact that these different groups mean vastly different
things by calling believers "gods." In some cases it is evident
that they really do not believe in one God at all. In other cases
it is clear that they are using the word "gods" of believers in a
figurative sense such that their confession of one God is not
contradicted at all. In still other cases a real tension exists,
and it is difficult to avoid concluding that the group in question
holds conflicting views.

    In order to accommodate this phenomenon, it is helpful to speak
of religious doctrines which undermine or are in tension with a
group's orthodox beliefs as _aberrational._ Holding such
aberrational views is a serious problem, and those who do so must
be considered as being in serious sin and should be treated
accordingly. Specifically, those advocating such errors should not
be allowed to teach or minister in the church, and those refusing
to keep such aberrant views to themselves should be excommunicated.

    The charge that a person or group's beliefs are aberrational is
a serious one that cannot be made easily. It is arguable that at
one level any incorrect belief is at tension with or undermines
orthodox beliefs. By aberrational, however, I am referring only to
false beliefs which do serious damage to the integrity of an
orthodox confession of faith.

    The sum of the matter is that doctrinal discernment is a
difficult task -- one which requires sensitivity, a sense of
proportion and balance, and a deep understanding of what is
essential and what is not. New heresies and aberrations are
constantly arising, as well as new insights into biblical truth,
and discernment is needed to tell the difference. Thus, the task of
doctrinal discernment is an ongoing necessity in the Christian
church.

    Having shown that doctrinal discernment is necessary, I have
yet to say very much at all about how it is to be done. That will
be the focus of Part Two of this article.

-------------

End of document, CRJ0041A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy. Part One: The Case For
Doctrinal Discernment"
release A, April 25, 1994
R. Poll, CRI

This two-part series was later expanded into book form titled,
"Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment"
(Baker Books, 1992).

Rob Bowman is now working with the Atlanta Christian Apologetics
Project, Post Office Box 450068, Atlanta, GA  31145; (404)
482-2227.

(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin.  While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity.  These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).

Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.


CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)

                              One Year     Two Years

U.S. Residents               [ ] 20.00     [ ] 37.00

Canadian (U.S. funds)        [ ] 24.00     [ ] 44.00

Other Foreign (U.S. funds)   [ ] 36.00     [ ] 66.00


Please make checks payable to CRI

To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:

                  (800) 2-JOURNAL


To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:

    CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500


[ ] Yes!  I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.

Name:    ___________________________________________________


Address: ___________________________________________________


Address: ___________________________________________________


City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________


Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________



 ------------------

YOURS FOR THE ASKING

Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking?  In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you
contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the
offer from this computer text file.  We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge.  Write us today for
information on these or other topics.  Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.

Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA  92693

[phone]

End of file.
-----