It's true, you are unique, and there really is nobody quite like you. Let's face it, the old way of doing church just didn't seem very relevant; in fact - you found it boring. But now we live in a time when churches recognize that you are special, and want to meet you right where you are at. How to know if your's is a "me church":
Are you treated like a "consumer" who needs customer service?
Does your pastor preach sermons on topics that
you want to hear, instead of what you really need to hear?
Are his sermons packed with feel-good psychology and philosophy?
Does your church try to entertain you with worldly music and drama?
Do the sermons minimize or eliminate negative things in the bible?
Is your worship music virtually indistinguishable from MTV and radio?
What gets boosted more, your self-esteem or your bible knowledge?
Maybe it's time to find a church that closer fits the bible's plan:
"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved". --Acts 2:42-47
"If there is anything in the church to which you belong
which is contrary to the inspired Word, leave that church."
--CH Spurgeon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, July 29, 2007
This is a great artical from my brothers in Lancaster PA,I wanted to pass it along to everyone and to say I can see the Lord putting together a band of brothers for the cause of TRUTH. I would ask that you also join with us as we fight for the TRUTH in an age of lies. The church of Jesus Christ has been PROSTITUTED by men long enough, stand with us today with your support as we shout to the world TRUTH DOES MATTER. Rev.Charles j.Paul
What in the world is happening to our churches? Many people are either confused or blindly accepting the new non-traditional worship services that are changing a lot of evangelical churches. It is happening worldwide. Many people are saying, “the church has to change during the twenty-first century if we are to bring the younger generation into it”. Let’s take a hard look at these changes and see if this is really of God, or a shallow misrepresentation of real Christianity.
Bill Hybels is the senior pastor (with a huge number of staff pastors), of Willow Creek Community Church located in Northwest –suburban Chicago with a membership of over 12,000. When Hybels decided to plant a church, instead of faithfully preaching the Word of God, he did surveys on non-churched people in his community. The survey revealed that people (1) didn’t like being bugged for money; (2) church was boring or too routine; (3) didn’t think church was relevant to their lives; and (4) that the Christian message was too negative and too preoccupied with sin, which made them feel guilty.
Hybels’ solution to this marketing survey was to present a program for non-believers on Sunday morning and another to believers on another day or evening. He stated that it was absolutely necessary to have an atmosphere where the un-churched would feel unthreatened, feel welcome, and be entertained. His methods were unscriptural methodology. In reality, he grew Willow Creek man’s way. He gave the people what they wanted! This is referred to in churches as the SEEKER SENSITIVE AGENDA. Thousands attend the “seeker services”. Contemporary or rock music, multimedia displays, dramatic sketches, and messages geared to those “investigating” Christianity. The self-help ethic pervades the sermons. I find the slick, contrived professionalism of Willow Creek akin to corporate culture, not the church, as it should be. Despite Bill Hybels’ humanistic gospel, more and more churches are flocking to the Willow Creek staff to learn the techniques of this mega church.
When one drives to the Willow Creek facilities, it looks more like a junior college with its plush surroundings and buildings, traffic guard bellowing out by microphone directing the traffic. Inside people are dressed from shorts to casual attire. The men in business suits, Willow Creek employees, eye the crowd and walk with their walkie-talkies like secret service agents. There is nothing that resembles a church inside – no crosses or religious icons. It has a snack bar, fountains, and geese swimming in ponds. It looks like high price corporate America, not a church. There are machines that are pumping out thousands of tapes of sermons to be sold to the crowd, video booths, and other wares for sale. “It is a Perfect Babel of Confusion”. (Christianity Today).
The overreaching concern is that the “seeker sensitive” churches compromise the gospel by tailoring their messages down to non-Christians. Theologian David Wells stated, “I honestly believe Hybels doesn’t think he is compromising the gospel by using cultural devices, but he seems blinded to the fact that the culture is not neutral.” For a revealing look as to just how psychological Willow Creek has become, see “Borne on His Wings”, a Willow Creek magazine, 1990. This approach takes a Freudian view to life’s problems. It should be noted that Hybels methodology is used by many cults (e.g. the Oxford Movement) and even in spiritism.
Rick Warren of California’s Saddleback Church is cut from the same cloth and uses the same marketing techniques, etc. as Bill Hybels. Some of the men that have influenced them are:
1. Robert Schuller – of Crystal Cathedral, California. This man has headed up the worldwide cult of Self-Esteem and Self-Love. His teachings are anti-biblical. Schuller is an ecumenist who embraces all faiths. There are many ways to heaven according to his philosophy. Schuller’s influence is enormous, and his Gospel of Success is embraced by increasing numbers of Christian leaders.
2. Richard Foster – “Celebration of Discipline”. This teacher has entered the shadowy world of pantheistic occultism. His book, named above, has many new age teachings in it.
3. John Wimber (now deceased) – Vineyard Fellowship. He created a New Age paradigm shift that is changing thousands of pastors and future pastors of how they view Christianity. John Wimber was very sincere in the desire to bring Biblical teaching. It is the extra-biblical sources he draws on that are the problem. He has made many apostate statements in his Signs and Wonders Lectures (Dave Hunt, Seduction of Christianity).
4. Dr. C. Peter Wagner – Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. He believes in “Dominion and Kingdom Now” theologies. In his spiritual warfare book, Territorial Spirits, he has quoted such people as Paul (David) Yonggi Cho, Larry Lea, Jack Hayford and others who accept Dominion theology. He merges paganism and Christianity in Territorial Spirits. He has established a world ecumenical prayer center in Colorado Springs.
This new type of evangelism seems to be growing and taking root in many or our formerly solid denominational, Bible, and evangelical churches today. The thing we must all do is “test the spirits and see if they are of God” and make sure our pastors and congregations stay in the Word of God. The marketing of the church is not winning souls for the Lord. “May God lead us to follow the Word of God more fully, to be holy and separated from the evil world culture? We must use greater discernment as we encounter the deceptions of these sad days of decline from faith and standards. God save us all from public-opinion surveys and Laodicean religions, American – style!” (Despatch – Endtime Ministries, W. B. Howard).
“… I will spew thee out of my mouth, because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing: and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind and naked.” Revelation 3:16,17
What in the world is happening to our churches? Many people are either confused or blindly accepting the new non-traditional worship services that are changing a lot of evangelical churches. It is happening worldwide. Many people are saying, “the church has to change during the twenty-first century if we are to bring the younger generation into it”. Let’s take a hard look at these changes and see if this is really of God, or a shallow misrepresentation of real Christianity.
Bill Hybels is the senior pastor (with a huge number of staff pastors), of Willow Creek Community Church located in Northwest –suburban Chicago with a membership of over 12,000. When Hybels decided to plant a church, instead of faithfully preaching the Word of God, he did surveys on non-churched people in his community. The survey revealed that people (1) didn’t like being bugged for money; (2) church was boring or too routine; (3) didn’t think church was relevant to their lives; and (4) that the Christian message was too negative and too preoccupied with sin, which made them feel guilty.
Hybels’ solution to this marketing survey was to present a program for non-believers on Sunday morning and another to believers on another day or evening. He stated that it was absolutely necessary to have an atmosphere where the un-churched would feel unthreatened, feel welcome, and be entertained. His methods were unscriptural methodology. In reality, he grew Willow Creek man’s way. He gave the people what they wanted! This is referred to in churches as the SEEKER SENSITIVE AGENDA. Thousands attend the “seeker services”. Contemporary or rock music, multimedia displays, dramatic sketches, and messages geared to those “investigating” Christianity. The self-help ethic pervades the sermons. I find the slick, contrived professionalism of Willow Creek akin to corporate culture, not the church, as it should be. Despite Bill Hybels’ humanistic gospel, more and more churches are flocking to the Willow Creek staff to learn the techniques of this mega church.
When one drives to the Willow Creek facilities, it looks more like a junior college with its plush surroundings and buildings, traffic guard bellowing out by microphone directing the traffic. Inside people are dressed from shorts to casual attire. The men in business suits, Willow Creek employees, eye the crowd and walk with their walkie-talkies like secret service agents. There is nothing that resembles a church inside – no crosses or religious icons. It has a snack bar, fountains, and geese swimming in ponds. It looks like high price corporate America, not a church. There are machines that are pumping out thousands of tapes of sermons to be sold to the crowd, video booths, and other wares for sale. “It is a Perfect Babel of Confusion”. (Christianity Today).
The overreaching concern is that the “seeker sensitive” churches compromise the gospel by tailoring their messages down to non-Christians. Theologian David Wells stated, “I honestly believe Hybels doesn’t think he is compromising the gospel by using cultural devices, but he seems blinded to the fact that the culture is not neutral.” For a revealing look as to just how psychological Willow Creek has become, see “Borne on His Wings”, a Willow Creek magazine, 1990. This approach takes a Freudian view to life’s problems. It should be noted that Hybels methodology is used by many cults (e.g. the Oxford Movement) and even in spiritism.
Rick Warren of California’s Saddleback Church is cut from the same cloth and uses the same marketing techniques, etc. as Bill Hybels. Some of the men that have influenced them are:
1. Robert Schuller – of Crystal Cathedral, California. This man has headed up the worldwide cult of Self-Esteem and Self-Love. His teachings are anti-biblical. Schuller is an ecumenist who embraces all faiths. There are many ways to heaven according to his philosophy. Schuller’s influence is enormous, and his Gospel of Success is embraced by increasing numbers of Christian leaders.
2. Richard Foster – “Celebration of Discipline”. This teacher has entered the shadowy world of pantheistic occultism. His book, named above, has many new age teachings in it.
3. John Wimber (now deceased) – Vineyard Fellowship. He created a New Age paradigm shift that is changing thousands of pastors and future pastors of how they view Christianity. John Wimber was very sincere in the desire to bring Biblical teaching. It is the extra-biblical sources he draws on that are the problem. He has made many apostate statements in his Signs and Wonders Lectures (Dave Hunt, Seduction of Christianity).
4. Dr. C. Peter Wagner – Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. He believes in “Dominion and Kingdom Now” theologies. In his spiritual warfare book, Territorial Spirits, he has quoted such people as Paul (David) Yonggi Cho, Larry Lea, Jack Hayford and others who accept Dominion theology. He merges paganism and Christianity in Territorial Spirits. He has established a world ecumenical prayer center in Colorado Springs.
This new type of evangelism seems to be growing and taking root in many or our formerly solid denominational, Bible, and evangelical churches today. The thing we must all do is “test the spirits and see if they are of God” and make sure our pastors and congregations stay in the Word of God. The marketing of the church is not winning souls for the Lord. “May God lead us to follow the Word of God more fully, to be holy and separated from the evil world culture? We must use greater discernment as we encounter the deceptions of these sad days of decline from faith and standards. God save us all from public-opinion surveys and Laodicean religions, American – style!” (Despatch – Endtime Ministries, W. B. Howard).
“… I will spew thee out of my mouth, because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing: and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind and naked.” Revelation 3:16,17
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Nothing But the Truth By John MacArthur
Biblical Christianity is all about truth. God’s objective revelation (the Bible) interpreted rationally yields divine truth in perfectly sufficient measure. Everything we need to know for life and godliness is there for us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3). God wrote only one book — the Bible. It contains all the truth God intended us to order our spiritual lives by. We don’t need to consult any other source for spiritual or moral principles to govern our lives. Scripture is not only wholly truth; it is also the highest standard of all truth – the rule by which all truth claims must be measured.
Such a conviction is the very antithesis of the post modern notion that no one should ever claim to know objective truth. And that is another major reason why Christianity has been targeted by the proponents of post modern inclusivism.
Authentic Christianity is “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Christian truth is not subject to change or amendment. It isn’t nullified by changes in worldly opinion or standards of political correctness. It doesn’t need to be adapted and redefined for every new generation.
Certainly, an individual’s understanding of the truth can be refined and sharpened by study of the Scripture. But the truth itself does not need to be reinvented or retooled in order to make it suitable for the times in which we live. The same truth Abraham, Moses, David, and the apostles believed is still truth for us. Changing times do not change the truth. Scripture is as unchanging as God Himself: “But the word of the LORD endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25). In other words, we need to adapt our understanding to the truth of God’s Word, not try to manipulate Scripture in a vain effort to harmonize it with the changing opinions of this world.
The truth of Scripture is something precious that must be carefully handled and closely guarded (1 Timothy 6:20). Once again, a proper understanding of Scripture involves conscientious and diligent study. Second Timothy 2:15 says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” By implication we see that all who do not divide the Scriptures right are sloppy workers who ought to be ashamed. In other words, no one has the right to be a theologian who is not first a careful exegete.
The truth is everything to a Christian. That is why we are called to refute error, defend the truth, and proclaim Scripture as the supreme truth against every lie propagated by the world.
I fear that the church in this post-modern era has lost focus on that fact. It is no longer deemed necessary to fight for the truth. In fact, many evangelicals now consider it ill-mannered and uncharitable to argue about any point of doctrine. Even gross error is now tolerable in some quarters for the sake of peace. Rather than rightly dividing the word and proclaiming it as truth, many churches now feature motivational lectures, drama, comedy, and other forms of entertainment — while utterly ignoring the great doctrines of the faith. Even people who attack the truth in pseudo-scholarly ways are finding publishers in the evangelical realm and being honored as if they had deep insight.
We must recover our love for biblical truth, as well as our conviction that it is unassailable truth. We have the truth in a world where most people are simply wandering around in hopeless ignorance. We need to proclaim it from the housetops, and quit playing along with those who suggest we are being arrogant if we claim to know anything for certain. We do have the truth, not because we are smarter or better than anyone else, but because God has revealed it in the Scriptures and has been gracious to open our eyes to see it. We would be sinning if we tried to keep the truth to ourselves.
How should we be in the world but not of it? What does "not of it" mean? Dr RC Sproul
The New Testament tells us that we are not to be conformed to this world but that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Rom. 12:2).
Let’s look at those two words that are crucial to that discussion in Scripture, the difference between conformity and transformation. The prefix con-means “with.” And so to conform to this world means literally to be with it. That’s one of the strongest drives and temptations that we have as Christians. Nobody wants to be out of it; we want to be “with it.” We want to be up-to-date. We want to fit in. And we’re often engulfed by peer pressure that wants us to imitate and participate in all of the structures and the styles of this world. The Bible says we are not to be conformed to the patterns of this world.
Now, when we hear that as Christians, so often we think that all we have to do is to become obvious nonconformists. So if the world wears buttons and bows, we don’t wear buttons and bows, or if the world wears lipstick, we don’t wear lipstick. We try to show ways in which we are different from the world. But that’s not what the Bible is talking about. It’s not just a matter of being different from the world; we are to go beyond nonconformity to transformation. That fits with everything the Scripture tells us of being salt and light to the world. Something that is transformed is something that is changed. The prefix trans-means “above and beyond.” We are to be above and beyond the standards of this world, not in the sense that we are to elevate ourselves in lofty status above everybody else, but that we are called to a more excellent way of life.
That doesn’t mean you drop out of the world; this world is my Father’s world, and this is the arena of God’s redemption. The tendency has always been to flee from the world and hide in the upper room, but God the Holy Spirit won’t tolerate that. He sends his people into the world. Luther said it this way: “There’s a normal pattern for Christian behavior. The person who’s converted out of the world spends his first days as a Christian in a tendency to completely withdraw from the world, as Paul went to Arabia, for example, or we might have a desire to be so far removed from the stains and the pollution of this world that we become monastic in our thinking—withdrawing, stepping out of the world altogether.”
But Luther said a Christian doesn’t reach maturity until he reenters the world and embraces the world again, not in its worldliness and its ungodly patterns but as the theater and the arena of God’s redemption. That’s what Jesus did; he went into the world in order to save the world. This world is the world that God has committed himself to renew and redeem, and we are to participate in that with him.
Let’s look at those two words that are crucial to that discussion in Scripture, the difference between conformity and transformation. The prefix con-means “with.” And so to conform to this world means literally to be with it. That’s one of the strongest drives and temptations that we have as Christians. Nobody wants to be out of it; we want to be “with it.” We want to be up-to-date. We want to fit in. And we’re often engulfed by peer pressure that wants us to imitate and participate in all of the structures and the styles of this world. The Bible says we are not to be conformed to the patterns of this world.
Now, when we hear that as Christians, so often we think that all we have to do is to become obvious nonconformists. So if the world wears buttons and bows, we don’t wear buttons and bows, or if the world wears lipstick, we don’t wear lipstick. We try to show ways in which we are different from the world. But that’s not what the Bible is talking about. It’s not just a matter of being different from the world; we are to go beyond nonconformity to transformation. That fits with everything the Scripture tells us of being salt and light to the world. Something that is transformed is something that is changed. The prefix trans-means “above and beyond.” We are to be above and beyond the standards of this world, not in the sense that we are to elevate ourselves in lofty status above everybody else, but that we are called to a more excellent way of life.
That doesn’t mean you drop out of the world; this world is my Father’s world, and this is the arena of God’s redemption. The tendency has always been to flee from the world and hide in the upper room, but God the Holy Spirit won’t tolerate that. He sends his people into the world. Luther said it this way: “There’s a normal pattern for Christian behavior. The person who’s converted out of the world spends his first days as a Christian in a tendency to completely withdraw from the world, as Paul went to Arabia, for example, or we might have a desire to be so far removed from the stains and the pollution of this world that we become monastic in our thinking—withdrawing, stepping out of the world altogether.”
But Luther said a Christian doesn’t reach maturity until he reenters the world and embraces the world again, not in its worldliness and its ungodly patterns but as the theater and the arena of God’s redemption. That’s what Jesus did; he went into the world in order to save the world. This world is the world that God has committed himself to renew and redeem, and we are to participate in that with him.
Free Will or the Bondage of the Will: by Bob DeWaay
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16)
“Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.” (Psalm 135:6)
Questions from readers prompt the writing of many CIC articles. The most frequently asked question that I have not addressed until now concerns free will. I thoroughly researched this topic nearly ten years ago. The reason for the delay is the complexity of the topic. Given, however, that the question continues to be asked, I shall address it now.
Dear readers, be warned in advance that the irreducible complexity of the topic will make this article difficult for many to follow. If you are a new reader, please be patient, this is not standard fare on these pages. To help those who have difficulty digesting philosophical arguments, I have provided summary statements at the end of sections. Feel free to skip forward to those summary statements if you see fit.
Please realize that free will is more of a philosophical concept than a theological one, though it has theological implications. However, I often see well meaning Christians misled by certain teachers who make their own understanding of free will a test for orthodoxy. I think this is unfortunate and confusing. If the following discussion does nothing else, it will show you that free will is not the simple solution to many important theological issues that many people think it is.
Two Definitions
I will be discussing two alternative definitions of free will. The first is the typical definition demanded by Arminians (those who believe that a free will choice to believe brings about salvation): “The ability to choose between options, either of which could be actualized by the act of choosing.” The second definition was proposed by Jonathan Edwards: “The ability to choose as one pleases.” I will explain these in the pages that follow and defend the second one. In so doing I will discuss several problems that arise in seeking to understand free will.
Key Problems with Free will
Problem 1 – The Bible Does Not Directly Address Free will
Free will is assumed from passages that teach human responsibility.
As we begin our discussion we confront our most important problem: free will is never directly addressed in the Bible. Even in passages where prophets and others asked God why He allowed so much evil to harm the innocent, it was not discussed. The answer was never that God was committed to the principle of free will and determined that allowing evil was a necessary by-product of free will.1 The will of humans is discussed in the Bible and the New Testament has a Greek word for it, but its relative freedom of choice is not directly discussed. To derive our understanding we have to go by implications from other Scriptures.
One lady wrote a long letter rebuking me for not teaching free will to her satisfaction. I asked her to provide scriptures that teach free will so I could discuss the concept with her. She sent a long list of scriptures on human responsibility. Her assumption was that if we are responsible we must have free choice in the matter. 2 Many people think the same way.
If we say that in order for a person to be responsible, that person must be perfectly able to make correct choices to obey God—it is the same as rejecting the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that humans are both responsible for their sin and in bondage to their sin. It teaches that God’s grace is necessary to deliver us from sin. If man were free to perfectly choose obedience, then someone other than Christ could have lived a sinless life and escape judgment based on human merit. That idea denies Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:9-18. Also, Paul teaches in Galatians 3 that the command to obey all of the Law or be cursed proves that those who are under the Law are cursed. Logically, if people had the ability to obey the Law perfectly, then it would not follow that being under the Law insured that they would be cursed. But Paul said that it did. This provides a fatal counterexample to any universal claim that responsibility implies ability.
Charles Finney, the 19th century revivalist championed the idea that Biblical passages about man’s moral responsibility imply complete ability to perfectly obey God. Finney taught perfectionism and created a heretical system of theology called “moral government.” The following citation shows Finney’s belief in human ability as a “first truth” of reason:
Moral agency implies the possession of free will. By free-will is intended the power of choosing, or refusing to choose, in every instance, in compliance with moral obligation. Free-will implies the power of originating and deciding our own choices, and of exercising our own sovereignty, in every instance of choice upon moral questions of deciding or choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases of moral obligation. That man cannot be under a moral obligation to perform an absolute impossibility is a first truth of reason. But man’s causality, his whole power of causality to perform or do anything, lies in his will. 3
This sounds logical to the unregenerate mind; but it is not Biblical. Finney’s position is a reiteration of the Pelagian heresy. It goes so far in the direction of human ability that even Rome anathematized it at Trent: “If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if by free-will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty: let him be anathema.”4 Rome also anathematized Luther’s opposite position on this, the bondage of the will: “If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.”5 Roman Catholic theology is semi-Pelagian, which it viewed as middle ground. That means Rome taught “prevenient grace”: “If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him: let him be anathema.”6
Summary Statement
Let me summarize the three basic positions on the will of man in relationship to ability to choose to obey God: 1) Pelagianism like that of Finney teaches that humans are fully able to obey God without any special work of grace. The mere presence of a command from God, they say, requires the reality of free will ability to comply. 2) Semi-Pelagians teach that without prevenient grace, man would not be able to respond freely to the call to believe; but that God has already provided such grace to all humans. “Prevenient” is an old English term that means “to go before.” The semi-Pelagian view is also synergistic—meaning that salvation and sanctification are a cooperative effort between God and man. 3) Luther and the other reformers taught the bondage of the will. This position, anathematized by Rome in several canons on justification, was that all fallen sinners are in bondage to their own sin so much so that they will not submit to God without a prior sovereign work of God’s grace. This became the Reformation doctrine of “grace alone,” also called “monergism.” By this thinking salvation is an act of God alone. I agree with Luther on this matter.
This Topic is Complex
Why is this topic so complex? It is complex because the relative freedom or bondage of the will is different for different types of people addressed in the Bible. For example, the freedom of will that Adam and Eve had before the Fall is surely different from the freedom or lack thereof experienced by people born with a sin nature after the Fall.7 Also, the relative freedom of will experienced by a regenerate person differs from an unregenerate sinner. Furthermore, consider the uniqueness of freedom for the redeemed in heaven. Clearly these differences are important to any discussion of the freedom or bondage of the will as the case may be. Whatever definition of free will we defend should account for these cases.
Most free will theology is based on philosophical considerations that are imported to the discussion from outside the Bible. Since the Bible does not directly discuss the meaning of “free will,” the concept must be derived from passages about human bondage to sin and human responsibility and culpability before the Law of God. You will see this as we examine literature on the topic. This complexity is why I find simplistic demands for belief in “free will” inappropriate. Those who make these demands have not provided enough information to explain what we are required to believe to be considered orthodox in their eyes.
Problem #2 Defining Free will
It might be surprising to many that defining free will is controversial. Jonathan Edwards wrote a profound work on this subject called: A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame.”8 Though very laborious reading, it is the best material I have found on this issue. While in seminary I spent a lot of time digesting Edward’s arguments so that I might understand the issue of the relative freedom of the human will. What follows contains some of the fruits of that effort.
I will provide an overview of Edward’s reasoning and describe the process he used to define free will. He begins by defining an act of the will: “The faculty of the will is that faculty or power, or principle of minds, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.”9 Edward’s key premise is this: “A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will.”10 These desires are determined by a man’s nature. After contemplating Edwards’ writings on this, I decided that I agree with him.
This brings us to Edward’s next consideration, the cause of acts of the will. Are acts of the human will caused or uncaused? Philosophers often discuss this topic. The short answer is that the only uncaused being or thing in the universe is God. Everything else has a previous cause. To argue that acts of the will are uncaused, says Edwards, is absurd. Then he deals with the challenge that acts of the will are self-caused—which some have asserted. In reality the soul determines acts of the will.11 However, when one introduces the idea of self-determined acts of the will, one just pushes the problem further back. Previous acts of the will determine the conditions for future acts of the will. This creates an infinite regress that must go back to some initial uncaused cause. Writes Edwards, “But if that first volition is not determined by a preceding act of the will, then that act is not determined by the will and is not free in the Arminian notion of freedom, which consists in the will’s self-determination.”12 Edwards concludes, “Thus, this Arminian notion of liberty of the will, consisting in the will’s self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shouts itself wholly out of the world.”13 Infinite regresses are always problematic.
Summary Statement
To summarize, those who assert absolute self-determining freedom of the will have serious problems. Dependent human beings, coming into the world with their own desires and inclinations, will not choose contrary to their own natures. For example, a person who utterly loathes beef liver (for whatever reason) will not choose to eat it. Whatever it is about that person’s nature that makes him hate liver, also causes him to choose not to eat it. The human will does not show up out of nowhere, uncaused, sovereign (to use Finney’s term for it) and fully capable of self-determination. Whatever makes a person the way he is causes him to choose as he does.
To further summarize, asserting that acts of the will are self-caused creates an infinite regress to some uncaused beginning. When Edwards says that this uncaused beginning defeats the Arminian definition, he means that their definition requires that all acts of the will are self-caused. But in reality, there is a chain of causes that has to start somewhere and that beginning would be somewhere other than in the will itself. This shows that their definition does not work. Edwards demolishes the idea of self-caused acts of the will and to my thinking does so validly.
Further Discussion of Self-determination
Norman Geisler argues for self-determination when he states: “Sooner or later those proposing this argument will have to admit that a free act is a self-determined act that is not caused by another.”14 Geisler claims to resolve the problem by saying a person is the cause of his acts of the will. This view grants sinners who are dependent of something outside of themselves (God) for their own existence the power of self-determination through choices that are somehow disconnected from their own nature and their previous choices. Geisler includes in his doctrine of self-determination, “the ability to choose the opposite.”15 This ability is essential to the typical Arminian definition of free will and was refuted by Edwards. Later we will show that this definition does not fit God, the holy angels, or the redeemed in heaven; all of whom we know to be free.
Edwards fully anticipated what he called “evasions” such as those offered by Geisler.16 Having established that acts of the will are choices, and these choices arise from the human soul, Edwards argues that they are still caused, not uncaused. Edwards wrote, “To say it is caused, influenced and determined by something and yet not determined by any thing antecedent, either in order of time or nature, is a contradiction.”17 Pushing the cause back from the will to the moral agent does not resolve the problem. What causes the moral agent to choose as he does? Geisler asserts full self-determination—the person is the sole cause of his own choices. This would mean that humans have the ability to escape from their own natures, desires, consequences of previous choices, and every other influence that causes them to choose as they do and with sovereign will-power make self-determined choices.
In my opinion, Geisler is using a semantic slight of hand to try to assert at one and the same time that human choices are caused and uncaused. Edwards refuted those who did the same in his day.18 Geisler claimed that the human soul being the cause of free choices was the only cause necessary; so did a writer in Edward’s day. Here is Edward’s rebuttal: “The activity of the soul may enable it to be the cause of effects; but it does not at all enable or help it be the subject of effects that have no cause, which is the thing this author supposes concerning acts of the will.”19 The soul making a choice is not pristine (sovereignly free to choose any option whatsoever without bias, reason or motivation) and unaffected previous causes.
Luther also argued strongly against the type of philosophy espoused by Geisler in our day and others in Luther’s day:
[T]hat is, a man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it.20
Luther’s view was central to the Reformation and the very view anathematized by Trent. Geisler’s apparently semi-Pelagian view is very much like Rome’s. Geisler also asserts synergism (that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man).21 This is also a rejection of a key doctrine of the Reformation and certainly is a rejection of “grace alone.” Luther wrote, “And hence it follows, that ‘Free-will,’ without the grace of God is, absolutely, not FREE; but, immutably, the servant and bond-slave of evil; because, it cannot turn itself unto good.”22 I agree with Luther and Edwards that choices are caused by the nature and desires of the person choosing. Only God’s grace can change that, not some supposed principle of self-determination.
Summary Statement
The soul of the person determines what the person chooses. A person chooses according to what appears the most desirable. What appears most desirable is determined by the nature of the person holding the desires. When Norman Geisler and other Arminians23 claim that choices are self-determined and need no other cause, they are dissociating the choice from the nature of the person making it. However, the “self” that chooses is not sovereign and self-caused, only God is that. The reason Arminians argue for self-determination and choices that are self-caused is that they want to argue that fallen sinners are free to choose to obey God in spite of their sin nature. Luther and Edwards show that the sinner chooses sin because it is his nature to do so.
More on Defining Free will
We still need further discussion about the definition of free will. Edwards next dealt with the Arminian objection that there can be a state of indifference in the soul out of which the will is able to sovereignly choose. Edwards dealt with that by pointing out that if the will does make a choice, at that point of choice it cannot be called “indifferent.” Edwards wrote, “Choice and preference can no more be in a state of indifference, than motion can be in a state of rest, or than the preponderation of the scale of a balance can be in a state of equilibrium.”24 He called a choice made out of total indifference a “contradiction” and “absurdity,” thus rejecting a definition proposed by some Arminians in his day.25
Edwards, after lengthy argumentation, offers a definition of an act of the will: “[E]very act of the will is some way connected with the understanding, and is as the greatest apparent good is, in the manner which has already been explained; namely, that the soul always wills or chooses that which, in the present view of the mind, considered in the whole of that view, and all that belongs to it, appears most agreeable.”26 Citing Arminian objections to this principle which seek to disassociate acts of the will from the understanding in order to make them fully “free,” Edwards charges them with inconsistency:
And if so, in vain are all the applications to the understanding, in order to induce to any free virtuous act; and so in vain are all instructions, counsels, invitations, expostulations, and all arguments and persuasives whatsoever; for these are but applications to the understanding, and a clear and lively exhibition of the objects of choice to the mind’s view. But if, after all, the will must be self-determined, and independent on the understanding, to what purpose are things thus represented to the understanding, in order to determine the choice.27
So if total, undetermined, sovereign freedom of choice, disconnected from previous causes or states of the soul is the great good of the universe as asserted by some Arminians -- then why try to convince people to change their minds and make different choices? Doing so shows a belief that the state of a person’s mind or soul determines their choices, which is the very doctrine that Edwards asserted and Arminians reject.
Having established that an uncaused act of the will is impossible and that pushing the cause back to the human soul does not alleviate the problem, Edwards concludes: “And as it is in a manner self-evident, that there can be no act of will, choice, or preference of the mind, without some motive or inducement, something in the mind’s view, which it aims at, seeks, inclines to, and goes after; so it is most manifest, there is no such liberty in the universe as Arminians insist on; nor any such thing possible or conceivable.”28
Summary Statement
To summarize Edward’s argument thus far: 1) All acts of the will have causes. 2) Acts of the will arise from the human soul according to its own desires and nature. 3) Acts of the will are determined by whatever appears most desirous at the moment by the person choosing.
By the Arminian Definition of Freedom, God Would Not Be Free
A key problem with the type of definition of freedom espoused by theologians like Norm Geisler in our day, and others in Edwards’ day, is that it cannot apply to God Himself and other moral agents such as holy angels and the redeemed in heaven. This is a problem because the definition they propose demands the ability to choose the contrary—when there is such a choice between options, either one could be actualized. They argue for this definition on this basis: it is the only definition that makes moral agents praiseworthy or blameworthy (remember that Edwards used the terms “praise and blame” in his long title). Why do they make this claim? They assume that if a moral agent had no option but to do good or to do evil, that agent could not be praised or blamed for what exists as a matter of necessity. They would consider that as foolish as blaming a leopard for having spots.
Again, Edwards takes on this argument in a full and compelling manner. The simple form of Edwards’ rebuttal is that God Himself, because of His own perfect, holy and virtuous nature, cannot be anything but holy and just. The Bible says “God cannot lie.”29 Since the Arminian definition of freedom requires the real option of choosing the contrary, God is not “free” because His nature determines that He must be truthful. Likewise, if this definition were to hold, God would not be praiseworthy for His holy virtues because the real possibility of choosing and actualizing the contrary does not exist for God.
I cannot resist the opportunity to share with my readers some vintage Edwards, including his aversion to periods:
So that, putting these things together, the infinitely holy God, who always used to be esteemed by God’s people not only virtuous, but a Being in whom is all possible virtue, and every virtue in the most absolute purity and perfection, and in infinitely greater brightness and amiableness than in any creature: the most perfect pattern of virtue, and the fountain from whom all others, virtue is but as beams from the sun; and who has been supposed to be, on the account of his virtue and holiness, infinitely more worthy to be esteemed, loved, honored, admired, commended, extolled, and praised, than any creature: and he who is thus every where represented in Scripture; I say, this Being, according to this notion of Dr. Whithy, and other Arminians, has no virtue at all: virtue, when ascribed to him, is but an empty name; and he is deserving of no commendation or praise; because he is under necessity, he cannot avoid being holy and good as he is; therefore no thanks to him for it.30
Since this common Arminian definition of freedom logically leads to an absurdity (according to Edwards) it must be rejected.
It could be argued that the term “freedom” when predicated of God is not the same as when predicated of a human being. This, of course, is true of other attributes of God. When it is said that God is holy, it is not univocally the same as saying an angel is holy, or a person who is saved is holy. But there is a valid analogical relationship that still holds. God as being God, is holy according to his order of being; holy angels, though created and deriving their holiness from God, nevertheless are holy as is fitting for their order of being.
Therefore, freedom that a person has is analogically related to freedom that God has. For example, consider the redeemed in heaven. We know that the redeemed in heaven are free from sin. Let us apply the Arminian definition of freedom of the will to the redeemed in heaven. Are they fully able to choose between options, either of which could be actualized in reality? Being informed by the Bible that the redeemed shall have the type of holiness necessary for living perfectly in God’s presence for all eternity, we have to answer that they will not have the freedom to choose the contrary. There is no real chance the redeemed in heaven will ever choose to sin. This being the case, the aforementioned definition of freedom would not apply to the redeemed in heaven either.
Edwards also argued that if it is countered that God is indeed worthy of praise though He is necessarily holy and upright, but that humans have to make themselves praiseworthy through free choices, then man has a greater claim to esteem and commendation than God does.31 This too is absurd. Edwards puts forth many similar examples and arguments, including the holiness of Christ in His incarnation, to show that the Arminian definition of free will is untenable and fails to account for what we know to be true from the Scriptures. He also deals with the obverse of this: that sinners must be able to choose not to sin if they are to be blamed for their own evil. He gives many examples from the Scripture that sinners such as Judas who are given over to sin through the judgment of reprobation, are nevertheless blameworthy for their sinful condition.32
Luther argued that the only truly free being in the universe is God. Wrote Luther, “It now then follows, that free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone ‘doth, (as the Psalm sings), what He will in Heaven and earth.’”33 Most certainly we need a definition of free will that applies to the one truly free being in the universe!
D. A. Carson claims that a definition of free will that includes the ability to actualize the contrary possibility is not compatible with God’s sovereignty. Carson writes, “If its [free will’s] essence is the absolute power to contrary, a logical contradiction is entailed when this absolute power to contrary is coupled with a divine providence which in some sense foreordains all things with certainty.”34 Carson concludes that the definition that requires the “absolute power to the contrary” cannot be maintained in light of the Biblical material he discusses.35
Summary Statement
I will not labor any longer over this point that Edwards makes so well. The definition of freedom of the will that requires the real ability to choose the contrary and the possibility of that contrary choice being actualized fails to account for what is stated in the Bible. If a reprobate sinner is powerless to choose holiness and virtue, his sin is still blameworthy. If the righteous in heaven have no desire or opportunity to choose sin and evil, their holy estate is still praiseworthy. The same goes for God Himself and the holy angels. If Satan has neither desire, opportunity, nor ability to choose good and virtue, Satan is still blameworthy for his evil. If humans born after the nature of Adam had no opportunity to choose to be born sinless, they are nevertheless blameworthy for their sin. I make these statements in light of what we know the Bible teaches. Since the definition of freedom that Arminians typically assert fails to account for these realities, the definition must be rejected.
A Simple Alternative
Edward’s proposed a most simple solution to this debate. He proposed a simple definition of freedom: “the ability to do as one pleases.” He states this fact: “The plain and obvious meaning of the words freedom and liberty, in common speech, is power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases.” He pointed out the obvious fact that “freedom” is something a person who has a will has, not something the will itself has: “That which has the power of volition or choice, is the man or the soul, and not the power of volition itself.” So if a person has the opportunity to choose whatever seems best to him, he is thereby freely exercising his volition.
Summary Statement
Edwards’ simple definition of freedom of the will is the ability to choose as one pleases. This definition, along with the definition that a person chooses according to his greatest desire at the moment, resolves the many problems that the Arminian definition created. Now, God is free because He freely chooses all that is holy and virtuous from His perfectly holy nature. The same goes for holy angels and the redeemed in heaven. Likewise all other moral agents are free to choose as they see fit, including the wicked.
The Underlying Concern
Why would anyone reject this simple solution? The answer lies in certain theological priorities. If this definition is accepted, then it would follow that no sinner would ever choose to come to God on His terms: “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7, 8). If this be true, then Luther’s position against Rome that salvation is fully an act of God is true because the dead sinner is not about to cooperate in his own salvation. This idea is as repulsive to many evangelicals today as it was to the Roman Catholic Church when Luther first taught it. But what really matters is what the Bible says.
Implications
Free will is not the simple answer to important theological questions that people think it is. It raises more questions and complications than it answers. I set about to study this matter in great detail over ten years ago. I read the best material I could find, much of it sited in this article. The bottom line for me is that we need to accept what the Bible teaches and not try to escape from clear Biblical passages through philosophical speculation. I am not minimizing the sincere desire people have to answer the difficult question about God’s relationship to time, evil, and human choices. But I am saying that outside of Divine revelation in Scripture there are true mysteries.
People, for example, want to know why Adam and Eve sinned. The doctrine of free will that many cherish is deemed the obvious answer. I would affirm that Adam and Eve freely chose to rebel against God. Some suggest that this proves God’s ultimate commitment to the principle of self-determination. But the Bible does not teach that God is committed to a principle of creaturely self-determination that explains the whole history of sin and redemption. If God left all sinners the full power of self-determination, then all would be damned. We need to be delivered by God out of our self-determined course on the road to hell.
But, back to the question, why did Adam and Eve sin? Let’s push the question back further. Why did God allow the Serpent into the Garden? Why did not God utterly destroy Satan when he first rebelled? The Bible does not say. Whatever is not revealed is a mystery, and the answers to the last two of these questions are mysteries.
How could it be that Adam and Eve, being created good by a good God, chose to do evil? Doesn’t that violate Edward’s definition of choosing what one desires? The real question from Edwards’ perspective would be: Where did Adam and Eve get such a desire, being innocent? They obviously had the desire or they would not have acted on it. Since the Bible only explains this in terms of the Serpent enticing Eve to question God’s word, we must accept that answer. What is not revealed is rightly described as “mystery.”
Some argue that if God could have kept Adam and Eve from sinning He would be morally obligated to do so. He did not, so obviously God was incapable of keeping Adam and Eve from sinning because if He did He would have violated the right of self-determination of the creature. Do you realize how many unbiblical presumptions this thinking involves? Where does the Bible say God is morally obligated to keep His creatures from sinning if He has the power to do so? That is a philosophical premise that is not taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible teach that God has obligated Himself to the principle of the creature’s right to self-determination? That is a philosophical premise that is not taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible assert that evil is due to some inability in God to prevent it? It does not; that is philosophical speculation not taught in Scripture.
I am not saying that it is wrong to ask philosophical questions and to seek their answers. I am saying that it is wrong to demand that other Christians believe what one teaches under pains of being declared heretical or unbiblical based on philosophical questions not raised or answered in Scripture. That is precisely what prompted me to write this article. At the very least, consider what the Bible teaches:
Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Would it not be kind and charitable to allow Christians to literarily believe what this says without being forced to redefine it based on someone’s philosophical speculations?
Conclusion
I share this discussion to further demonstrate how exceedingly complex the discussion of free will is when engaged in from a philosophical perspective. I want to emphasize again, this is a philosophical discussion about matters that the Biblical writers appeared to be unconcerned about. Secular writers and philosophers often address the issue of free will. For example, consider the following from Stephen Hawking, the famous scientist who wrote A Brief History of Time:
Of course, you could say that free will is an illusion anyway. If there really is a complete theory of physics that governs everything, it presumably also determines your actions. . . . So one way to look at it is that we say humans have free will because we cannot predict what they do. However, if a human goes off in a rocket ship and comes back before he set off, we will be able to predict what he will do because it will be part of recorded history. Thus in that situation, the time traveler would not in any sense have free will.38
Philosophers advance a similar argument only concerning God’s foreknowledge. If God foreknows all things, then all things have been certain since before the foundation of the world. Somewhere we have to leave off philosophical speculation and accept the testimony of Scripture. I appreciate D. A. Carson’s appeal to Scripture and suggestion that it teaches both Divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
I am bemused when I hear Arminians suggesting that so-called “Calvinists” are always bringing philosophical considerations to the table. What they do not realize is that their free will idea is philosophical. Philosophers with no interest in theology discuss it constantly. Conversely, monergism and synergism are purely theological issues. Secular philosophers have no concern whether salvation is an act of God alone, or a cooperative effort between man and God.
Edwards’ simple definition of free will gives us a great starting point to discuss the matter of God’s grace in salvation. If everyone is free to choose according to his or her own desires and nature, then how does a sinner choose to come to God on His terms? The answer has to do with God’s sovereign grace.
We need to decide between the Roman Catholic doctrine of synergism, and the doctrine of “grace alone” taught by the Reformation. This debate centers on the issue of human ability or human inability as the case may be. The next CIC article will explore issues about salvation and whether it is an act of God, or a cooperative effort. I will further defend the idea that the whole human being, including the faculty of the will, is in bondage to sin and death and is incapable of extracting himself out of it. Salvation is an act of God alone.
“Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.” (Psalm 135:6)
Questions from readers prompt the writing of many CIC articles. The most frequently asked question that I have not addressed until now concerns free will. I thoroughly researched this topic nearly ten years ago. The reason for the delay is the complexity of the topic. Given, however, that the question continues to be asked, I shall address it now.
Dear readers, be warned in advance that the irreducible complexity of the topic will make this article difficult for many to follow. If you are a new reader, please be patient, this is not standard fare on these pages. To help those who have difficulty digesting philosophical arguments, I have provided summary statements at the end of sections. Feel free to skip forward to those summary statements if you see fit.
Please realize that free will is more of a philosophical concept than a theological one, though it has theological implications. However, I often see well meaning Christians misled by certain teachers who make their own understanding of free will a test for orthodoxy. I think this is unfortunate and confusing. If the following discussion does nothing else, it will show you that free will is not the simple solution to many important theological issues that many people think it is.
Two Definitions
I will be discussing two alternative definitions of free will. The first is the typical definition demanded by Arminians (those who believe that a free will choice to believe brings about salvation): “The ability to choose between options, either of which could be actualized by the act of choosing.” The second definition was proposed by Jonathan Edwards: “The ability to choose as one pleases.” I will explain these in the pages that follow and defend the second one. In so doing I will discuss several problems that arise in seeking to understand free will.
Key Problems with Free will
Problem 1 – The Bible Does Not Directly Address Free will
Free will is assumed from passages that teach human responsibility.
As we begin our discussion we confront our most important problem: free will is never directly addressed in the Bible. Even in passages where prophets and others asked God why He allowed so much evil to harm the innocent, it was not discussed. The answer was never that God was committed to the principle of free will and determined that allowing evil was a necessary by-product of free will.1 The will of humans is discussed in the Bible and the New Testament has a Greek word for it, but its relative freedom of choice is not directly discussed. To derive our understanding we have to go by implications from other Scriptures.
One lady wrote a long letter rebuking me for not teaching free will to her satisfaction. I asked her to provide scriptures that teach free will so I could discuss the concept with her. She sent a long list of scriptures on human responsibility. Her assumption was that if we are responsible we must have free choice in the matter. 2 Many people think the same way.
If we say that in order for a person to be responsible, that person must be perfectly able to make correct choices to obey God—it is the same as rejecting the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that humans are both responsible for their sin and in bondage to their sin. It teaches that God’s grace is necessary to deliver us from sin. If man were free to perfectly choose obedience, then someone other than Christ could have lived a sinless life and escape judgment based on human merit. That idea denies Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:9-18. Also, Paul teaches in Galatians 3 that the command to obey all of the Law or be cursed proves that those who are under the Law are cursed. Logically, if people had the ability to obey the Law perfectly, then it would not follow that being under the Law insured that they would be cursed. But Paul said that it did. This provides a fatal counterexample to any universal claim that responsibility implies ability.
Charles Finney, the 19th century revivalist championed the idea that Biblical passages about man’s moral responsibility imply complete ability to perfectly obey God. Finney taught perfectionism and created a heretical system of theology called “moral government.” The following citation shows Finney’s belief in human ability as a “first truth” of reason:
Moral agency implies the possession of free will. By free-will is intended the power of choosing, or refusing to choose, in every instance, in compliance with moral obligation. Free-will implies the power of originating and deciding our own choices, and of exercising our own sovereignty, in every instance of choice upon moral questions of deciding or choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases of moral obligation. That man cannot be under a moral obligation to perform an absolute impossibility is a first truth of reason. But man’s causality, his whole power of causality to perform or do anything, lies in his will. 3
This sounds logical to the unregenerate mind; but it is not Biblical. Finney’s position is a reiteration of the Pelagian heresy. It goes so far in the direction of human ability that even Rome anathematized it at Trent: “If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if by free-will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty: let him be anathema.”4 Rome also anathematized Luther’s opposite position on this, the bondage of the will: “If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.”5 Roman Catholic theology is semi-Pelagian, which it viewed as middle ground. That means Rome taught “prevenient grace”: “If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him: let him be anathema.”6
Summary Statement
Let me summarize the three basic positions on the will of man in relationship to ability to choose to obey God: 1) Pelagianism like that of Finney teaches that humans are fully able to obey God without any special work of grace. The mere presence of a command from God, they say, requires the reality of free will ability to comply. 2) Semi-Pelagians teach that without prevenient grace, man would not be able to respond freely to the call to believe; but that God has already provided such grace to all humans. “Prevenient” is an old English term that means “to go before.” The semi-Pelagian view is also synergistic—meaning that salvation and sanctification are a cooperative effort between God and man. 3) Luther and the other reformers taught the bondage of the will. This position, anathematized by Rome in several canons on justification, was that all fallen sinners are in bondage to their own sin so much so that they will not submit to God without a prior sovereign work of God’s grace. This became the Reformation doctrine of “grace alone,” also called “monergism.” By this thinking salvation is an act of God alone. I agree with Luther on this matter.
This Topic is Complex
Why is this topic so complex? It is complex because the relative freedom or bondage of the will is different for different types of people addressed in the Bible. For example, the freedom of will that Adam and Eve had before the Fall is surely different from the freedom or lack thereof experienced by people born with a sin nature after the Fall.7 Also, the relative freedom of will experienced by a regenerate person differs from an unregenerate sinner. Furthermore, consider the uniqueness of freedom for the redeemed in heaven. Clearly these differences are important to any discussion of the freedom or bondage of the will as the case may be. Whatever definition of free will we defend should account for these cases.
Most free will theology is based on philosophical considerations that are imported to the discussion from outside the Bible. Since the Bible does not directly discuss the meaning of “free will,” the concept must be derived from passages about human bondage to sin and human responsibility and culpability before the Law of God. You will see this as we examine literature on the topic. This complexity is why I find simplistic demands for belief in “free will” inappropriate. Those who make these demands have not provided enough information to explain what we are required to believe to be considered orthodox in their eyes.
Problem #2 Defining Free will
It might be surprising to many that defining free will is controversial. Jonathan Edwards wrote a profound work on this subject called: A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame.”8 Though very laborious reading, it is the best material I have found on this issue. While in seminary I spent a lot of time digesting Edward’s arguments so that I might understand the issue of the relative freedom of the human will. What follows contains some of the fruits of that effort.
I will provide an overview of Edward’s reasoning and describe the process he used to define free will. He begins by defining an act of the will: “The faculty of the will is that faculty or power, or principle of minds, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.”9 Edward’s key premise is this: “A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will.”10 These desires are determined by a man’s nature. After contemplating Edwards’ writings on this, I decided that I agree with him.
This brings us to Edward’s next consideration, the cause of acts of the will. Are acts of the human will caused or uncaused? Philosophers often discuss this topic. The short answer is that the only uncaused being or thing in the universe is God. Everything else has a previous cause. To argue that acts of the will are uncaused, says Edwards, is absurd. Then he deals with the challenge that acts of the will are self-caused—which some have asserted. In reality the soul determines acts of the will.11 However, when one introduces the idea of self-determined acts of the will, one just pushes the problem further back. Previous acts of the will determine the conditions for future acts of the will. This creates an infinite regress that must go back to some initial uncaused cause. Writes Edwards, “But if that first volition is not determined by a preceding act of the will, then that act is not determined by the will and is not free in the Arminian notion of freedom, which consists in the will’s self-determination.”12 Edwards concludes, “Thus, this Arminian notion of liberty of the will, consisting in the will’s self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shouts itself wholly out of the world.”13 Infinite regresses are always problematic.
Summary Statement
To summarize, those who assert absolute self-determining freedom of the will have serious problems. Dependent human beings, coming into the world with their own desires and inclinations, will not choose contrary to their own natures. For example, a person who utterly loathes beef liver (for whatever reason) will not choose to eat it. Whatever it is about that person’s nature that makes him hate liver, also causes him to choose not to eat it. The human will does not show up out of nowhere, uncaused, sovereign (to use Finney’s term for it) and fully capable of self-determination. Whatever makes a person the way he is causes him to choose as he does.
To further summarize, asserting that acts of the will are self-caused creates an infinite regress to some uncaused beginning. When Edwards says that this uncaused beginning defeats the Arminian definition, he means that their definition requires that all acts of the will are self-caused. But in reality, there is a chain of causes that has to start somewhere and that beginning would be somewhere other than in the will itself. This shows that their definition does not work. Edwards demolishes the idea of self-caused acts of the will and to my thinking does so validly.
Further Discussion of Self-determination
Norman Geisler argues for self-determination when he states: “Sooner or later those proposing this argument will have to admit that a free act is a self-determined act that is not caused by another.”14 Geisler claims to resolve the problem by saying a person is the cause of his acts of the will. This view grants sinners who are dependent of something outside of themselves (God) for their own existence the power of self-determination through choices that are somehow disconnected from their own nature and their previous choices. Geisler includes in his doctrine of self-determination, “the ability to choose the opposite.”15 This ability is essential to the typical Arminian definition of free will and was refuted by Edwards. Later we will show that this definition does not fit God, the holy angels, or the redeemed in heaven; all of whom we know to be free.
Edwards fully anticipated what he called “evasions” such as those offered by Geisler.16 Having established that acts of the will are choices, and these choices arise from the human soul, Edwards argues that they are still caused, not uncaused. Edwards wrote, “To say it is caused, influenced and determined by something and yet not determined by any thing antecedent, either in order of time or nature, is a contradiction.”17 Pushing the cause back from the will to the moral agent does not resolve the problem. What causes the moral agent to choose as he does? Geisler asserts full self-determination—the person is the sole cause of his own choices. This would mean that humans have the ability to escape from their own natures, desires, consequences of previous choices, and every other influence that causes them to choose as they do and with sovereign will-power make self-determined choices.
In my opinion, Geisler is using a semantic slight of hand to try to assert at one and the same time that human choices are caused and uncaused. Edwards refuted those who did the same in his day.18 Geisler claimed that the human soul being the cause of free choices was the only cause necessary; so did a writer in Edward’s day. Here is Edward’s rebuttal: “The activity of the soul may enable it to be the cause of effects; but it does not at all enable or help it be the subject of effects that have no cause, which is the thing this author supposes concerning acts of the will.”19 The soul making a choice is not pristine (sovereignly free to choose any option whatsoever without bias, reason or motivation) and unaffected previous causes.
Luther also argued strongly against the type of philosophy espoused by Geisler in our day and others in Luther’s day:
[T]hat is, a man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it.20
Luther’s view was central to the Reformation and the very view anathematized by Trent. Geisler’s apparently semi-Pelagian view is very much like Rome’s. Geisler also asserts synergism (that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man).21 This is also a rejection of a key doctrine of the Reformation and certainly is a rejection of “grace alone.” Luther wrote, “And hence it follows, that ‘Free-will,’ without the grace of God is, absolutely, not FREE; but, immutably, the servant and bond-slave of evil; because, it cannot turn itself unto good.”22 I agree with Luther and Edwards that choices are caused by the nature and desires of the person choosing. Only God’s grace can change that, not some supposed principle of self-determination.
Summary Statement
The soul of the person determines what the person chooses. A person chooses according to what appears the most desirable. What appears most desirable is determined by the nature of the person holding the desires. When Norman Geisler and other Arminians23 claim that choices are self-determined and need no other cause, they are dissociating the choice from the nature of the person making it. However, the “self” that chooses is not sovereign and self-caused, only God is that. The reason Arminians argue for self-determination and choices that are self-caused is that they want to argue that fallen sinners are free to choose to obey God in spite of their sin nature. Luther and Edwards show that the sinner chooses sin because it is his nature to do so.
More on Defining Free will
We still need further discussion about the definition of free will. Edwards next dealt with the Arminian objection that there can be a state of indifference in the soul out of which the will is able to sovereignly choose. Edwards dealt with that by pointing out that if the will does make a choice, at that point of choice it cannot be called “indifferent.” Edwards wrote, “Choice and preference can no more be in a state of indifference, than motion can be in a state of rest, or than the preponderation of the scale of a balance can be in a state of equilibrium.”24 He called a choice made out of total indifference a “contradiction” and “absurdity,” thus rejecting a definition proposed by some Arminians in his day.25
Edwards, after lengthy argumentation, offers a definition of an act of the will: “[E]very act of the will is some way connected with the understanding, and is as the greatest apparent good is, in the manner which has already been explained; namely, that the soul always wills or chooses that which, in the present view of the mind, considered in the whole of that view, and all that belongs to it, appears most agreeable.”26 Citing Arminian objections to this principle which seek to disassociate acts of the will from the understanding in order to make them fully “free,” Edwards charges them with inconsistency:
And if so, in vain are all the applications to the understanding, in order to induce to any free virtuous act; and so in vain are all instructions, counsels, invitations, expostulations, and all arguments and persuasives whatsoever; for these are but applications to the understanding, and a clear and lively exhibition of the objects of choice to the mind’s view. But if, after all, the will must be self-determined, and independent on the understanding, to what purpose are things thus represented to the understanding, in order to determine the choice.27
So if total, undetermined, sovereign freedom of choice, disconnected from previous causes or states of the soul is the great good of the universe as asserted by some Arminians -- then why try to convince people to change their minds and make different choices? Doing so shows a belief that the state of a person’s mind or soul determines their choices, which is the very doctrine that Edwards asserted and Arminians reject.
Having established that an uncaused act of the will is impossible and that pushing the cause back to the human soul does not alleviate the problem, Edwards concludes: “And as it is in a manner self-evident, that there can be no act of will, choice, or preference of the mind, without some motive or inducement, something in the mind’s view, which it aims at, seeks, inclines to, and goes after; so it is most manifest, there is no such liberty in the universe as Arminians insist on; nor any such thing possible or conceivable.”28
Summary Statement
To summarize Edward’s argument thus far: 1) All acts of the will have causes. 2) Acts of the will arise from the human soul according to its own desires and nature. 3) Acts of the will are determined by whatever appears most desirous at the moment by the person choosing.
By the Arminian Definition of Freedom, God Would Not Be Free
A key problem with the type of definition of freedom espoused by theologians like Norm Geisler in our day, and others in Edwards’ day, is that it cannot apply to God Himself and other moral agents such as holy angels and the redeemed in heaven. This is a problem because the definition they propose demands the ability to choose the contrary—when there is such a choice between options, either one could be actualized. They argue for this definition on this basis: it is the only definition that makes moral agents praiseworthy or blameworthy (remember that Edwards used the terms “praise and blame” in his long title). Why do they make this claim? They assume that if a moral agent had no option but to do good or to do evil, that agent could not be praised or blamed for what exists as a matter of necessity. They would consider that as foolish as blaming a leopard for having spots.
Again, Edwards takes on this argument in a full and compelling manner. The simple form of Edwards’ rebuttal is that God Himself, because of His own perfect, holy and virtuous nature, cannot be anything but holy and just. The Bible says “God cannot lie.”29 Since the Arminian definition of freedom requires the real option of choosing the contrary, God is not “free” because His nature determines that He must be truthful. Likewise, if this definition were to hold, God would not be praiseworthy for His holy virtues because the real possibility of choosing and actualizing the contrary does not exist for God.
I cannot resist the opportunity to share with my readers some vintage Edwards, including his aversion to periods:
So that, putting these things together, the infinitely holy God, who always used to be esteemed by God’s people not only virtuous, but a Being in whom is all possible virtue, and every virtue in the most absolute purity and perfection, and in infinitely greater brightness and amiableness than in any creature: the most perfect pattern of virtue, and the fountain from whom all others, virtue is but as beams from the sun; and who has been supposed to be, on the account of his virtue and holiness, infinitely more worthy to be esteemed, loved, honored, admired, commended, extolled, and praised, than any creature: and he who is thus every where represented in Scripture; I say, this Being, according to this notion of Dr. Whithy, and other Arminians, has no virtue at all: virtue, when ascribed to him, is but an empty name; and he is deserving of no commendation or praise; because he is under necessity, he cannot avoid being holy and good as he is; therefore no thanks to him for it.30
Since this common Arminian definition of freedom logically leads to an absurdity (according to Edwards) it must be rejected.
It could be argued that the term “freedom” when predicated of God is not the same as when predicated of a human being. This, of course, is true of other attributes of God. When it is said that God is holy, it is not univocally the same as saying an angel is holy, or a person who is saved is holy. But there is a valid analogical relationship that still holds. God as being God, is holy according to his order of being; holy angels, though created and deriving their holiness from God, nevertheless are holy as is fitting for their order of being.
Therefore, freedom that a person has is analogically related to freedom that God has. For example, consider the redeemed in heaven. We know that the redeemed in heaven are free from sin. Let us apply the Arminian definition of freedom of the will to the redeemed in heaven. Are they fully able to choose between options, either of which could be actualized in reality? Being informed by the Bible that the redeemed shall have the type of holiness necessary for living perfectly in God’s presence for all eternity, we have to answer that they will not have the freedom to choose the contrary. There is no real chance the redeemed in heaven will ever choose to sin. This being the case, the aforementioned definition of freedom would not apply to the redeemed in heaven either.
Edwards also argued that if it is countered that God is indeed worthy of praise though He is necessarily holy and upright, but that humans have to make themselves praiseworthy through free choices, then man has a greater claim to esteem and commendation than God does.31 This too is absurd. Edwards puts forth many similar examples and arguments, including the holiness of Christ in His incarnation, to show that the Arminian definition of free will is untenable and fails to account for what we know to be true from the Scriptures. He also deals with the obverse of this: that sinners must be able to choose not to sin if they are to be blamed for their own evil. He gives many examples from the Scripture that sinners such as Judas who are given over to sin through the judgment of reprobation, are nevertheless blameworthy for their sinful condition.32
Luther argued that the only truly free being in the universe is God. Wrote Luther, “It now then follows, that free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone ‘doth, (as the Psalm sings), what He will in Heaven and earth.’”33 Most certainly we need a definition of free will that applies to the one truly free being in the universe!
D. A. Carson claims that a definition of free will that includes the ability to actualize the contrary possibility is not compatible with God’s sovereignty. Carson writes, “If its [free will’s] essence is the absolute power to contrary, a logical contradiction is entailed when this absolute power to contrary is coupled with a divine providence which in some sense foreordains all things with certainty.”34 Carson concludes that the definition that requires the “absolute power to the contrary” cannot be maintained in light of the Biblical material he discusses.35
Summary Statement
I will not labor any longer over this point that Edwards makes so well. The definition of freedom of the will that requires the real ability to choose the contrary and the possibility of that contrary choice being actualized fails to account for what is stated in the Bible. If a reprobate sinner is powerless to choose holiness and virtue, his sin is still blameworthy. If the righteous in heaven have no desire or opportunity to choose sin and evil, their holy estate is still praiseworthy. The same goes for God Himself and the holy angels. If Satan has neither desire, opportunity, nor ability to choose good and virtue, Satan is still blameworthy for his evil. If humans born after the nature of Adam had no opportunity to choose to be born sinless, they are nevertheless blameworthy for their sin. I make these statements in light of what we know the Bible teaches. Since the definition of freedom that Arminians typically assert fails to account for these realities, the definition must be rejected.
A Simple Alternative
Edward’s proposed a most simple solution to this debate. He proposed a simple definition of freedom: “the ability to do as one pleases.” He states this fact: “The plain and obvious meaning of the words freedom and liberty, in common speech, is power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases.” He pointed out the obvious fact that “freedom” is something a person who has a will has, not something the will itself has: “That which has the power of volition or choice, is the man or the soul, and not the power of volition itself.” So if a person has the opportunity to choose whatever seems best to him, he is thereby freely exercising his volition.
Summary Statement
Edwards’ simple definition of freedom of the will is the ability to choose as one pleases. This definition, along with the definition that a person chooses according to his greatest desire at the moment, resolves the many problems that the Arminian definition created. Now, God is free because He freely chooses all that is holy and virtuous from His perfectly holy nature. The same goes for holy angels and the redeemed in heaven. Likewise all other moral agents are free to choose as they see fit, including the wicked.
The Underlying Concern
Why would anyone reject this simple solution? The answer lies in certain theological priorities. If this definition is accepted, then it would follow that no sinner would ever choose to come to God on His terms: “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7, 8). If this be true, then Luther’s position against Rome that salvation is fully an act of God is true because the dead sinner is not about to cooperate in his own salvation. This idea is as repulsive to many evangelicals today as it was to the Roman Catholic Church when Luther first taught it. But what really matters is what the Bible says.
Implications
Free will is not the simple answer to important theological questions that people think it is. It raises more questions and complications than it answers. I set about to study this matter in great detail over ten years ago. I read the best material I could find, much of it sited in this article. The bottom line for me is that we need to accept what the Bible teaches and not try to escape from clear Biblical passages through philosophical speculation. I am not minimizing the sincere desire people have to answer the difficult question about God’s relationship to time, evil, and human choices. But I am saying that outside of Divine revelation in Scripture there are true mysteries.
People, for example, want to know why Adam and Eve sinned. The doctrine of free will that many cherish is deemed the obvious answer. I would affirm that Adam and Eve freely chose to rebel against God. Some suggest that this proves God’s ultimate commitment to the principle of self-determination. But the Bible does not teach that God is committed to a principle of creaturely self-determination that explains the whole history of sin and redemption. If God left all sinners the full power of self-determination, then all would be damned. We need to be delivered by God out of our self-determined course on the road to hell.
But, back to the question, why did Adam and Eve sin? Let’s push the question back further. Why did God allow the Serpent into the Garden? Why did not God utterly destroy Satan when he first rebelled? The Bible does not say. Whatever is not revealed is a mystery, and the answers to the last two of these questions are mysteries.
How could it be that Adam and Eve, being created good by a good God, chose to do evil? Doesn’t that violate Edward’s definition of choosing what one desires? The real question from Edwards’ perspective would be: Where did Adam and Eve get such a desire, being innocent? They obviously had the desire or they would not have acted on it. Since the Bible only explains this in terms of the Serpent enticing Eve to question God’s word, we must accept that answer. What is not revealed is rightly described as “mystery.”
Some argue that if God could have kept Adam and Eve from sinning He would be morally obligated to do so. He did not, so obviously God was incapable of keeping Adam and Eve from sinning because if He did He would have violated the right of self-determination of the creature. Do you realize how many unbiblical presumptions this thinking involves? Where does the Bible say God is morally obligated to keep His creatures from sinning if He has the power to do so? That is a philosophical premise that is not taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible teach that God has obligated Himself to the principle of the creature’s right to self-determination? That is a philosophical premise that is not taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible assert that evil is due to some inability in God to prevent it? It does not; that is philosophical speculation not taught in Scripture.
I am not saying that it is wrong to ask philosophical questions and to seek their answers. I am saying that it is wrong to demand that other Christians believe what one teaches under pains of being declared heretical or unbiblical based on philosophical questions not raised or answered in Scripture. That is precisely what prompted me to write this article. At the very least, consider what the Bible teaches:
Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Would it not be kind and charitable to allow Christians to literarily believe what this says without being forced to redefine it based on someone’s philosophical speculations?
Conclusion
I share this discussion to further demonstrate how exceedingly complex the discussion of free will is when engaged in from a philosophical perspective. I want to emphasize again, this is a philosophical discussion about matters that the Biblical writers appeared to be unconcerned about. Secular writers and philosophers often address the issue of free will. For example, consider the following from Stephen Hawking, the famous scientist who wrote A Brief History of Time:
Of course, you could say that free will is an illusion anyway. If there really is a complete theory of physics that governs everything, it presumably also determines your actions. . . . So one way to look at it is that we say humans have free will because we cannot predict what they do. However, if a human goes off in a rocket ship and comes back before he set off, we will be able to predict what he will do because it will be part of recorded history. Thus in that situation, the time traveler would not in any sense have free will.38
Philosophers advance a similar argument only concerning God’s foreknowledge. If God foreknows all things, then all things have been certain since before the foundation of the world. Somewhere we have to leave off philosophical speculation and accept the testimony of Scripture. I appreciate D. A. Carson’s appeal to Scripture and suggestion that it teaches both Divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
I am bemused when I hear Arminians suggesting that so-called “Calvinists” are always bringing philosophical considerations to the table. What they do not realize is that their free will idea is philosophical. Philosophers with no interest in theology discuss it constantly. Conversely, monergism and synergism are purely theological issues. Secular philosophers have no concern whether salvation is an act of God alone, or a cooperative effort between man and God.
Edwards’ simple definition of free will gives us a great starting point to discuss the matter of God’s grace in salvation. If everyone is free to choose according to his or her own desires and nature, then how does a sinner choose to come to God on His terms? The answer has to do with God’s sovereign grace.
We need to decide between the Roman Catholic doctrine of synergism, and the doctrine of “grace alone” taught by the Reformation. This debate centers on the issue of human ability or human inability as the case may be. The next CIC article will explore issues about salvation and whether it is an act of God, or a cooperative effort. I will further defend the idea that the whole human being, including the faculty of the will, is in bondage to sin and death and is incapable of extracting himself out of it. Salvation is an act of God alone.
For Whom Did Christ Die?
by John Owen
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
Premise 1- All the sins of all men.
Premise 2- All the sins of some men (the elect), or
Premise 3- Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said--
a. That if the third premise is true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.
b. That if the second premise is true, the Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
c. But if the first premise is true, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer. Because of 'unbelief'.
I ask, is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ either suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did die for the sin of 'unbelief', why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not die for their sin of 'unbelief', then He did not die for all their sins!
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
Premise 1- All the sins of all men.
Premise 2- All the sins of some men (the elect), or
Premise 3- Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said--
a. That if the third premise is true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.
b. That if the second premise is true, the Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
c. But if the first premise is true, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer. Because of 'unbelief'.
I ask, is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ either suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did die for the sin of 'unbelief', why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not die for their sin of 'unbelief', then He did not die for all their sins!
Defining the Believer's Biblical Call to Judge
Many times, after publishing an article that disputes the claims of someone's published work, I am asked if I had talked to the person privately. There are those who claim that debating ideas in the public arena should not happen unless there was a prior Matthew 18 process of adjudication. It is my position that Matthew 18 does not apply to the public interaction of theological ideas." - Pastor Bob DeWaay
I just received an email from an elder of a local church that told me that I should be going directly to the people that I dispute. What he does not understand is that when a pastor or anyone posts something publicaly on the internet, radio, television, book, etc. for the world to see, we do not have to go directly to that person.
Below is a well written article by Pastor Bob DeWaay defining the believers Biblical call to judge.
It is not surprising that people are confused about the matter of passing judgment because some scriptures tell us we must make judgments and discern, and others warn us not to judge. We will see that Scripture provides straightforward, objective guidelines concerning making judgments and that both the commands to judge and the commands not to judge are understandable - and they are to be obeyed.
Do Not Judge - Matthew 7
The following teaching from the Sermon on the Mount warns us not to judge:
Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
Before we interpret those verses we must look at the sermon in Matthew that preceded it. The Sermon on the Mount concerns motives and sin. For example, the hypocrite prays to be "seen of men" (Matthew 6:5). Jesus' sermon contains warnings against anger (Matthew 5:22), lust (Matthew 5:28), a command to love one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) and a warning against loving money (Matthew 6:24). Jesus addresses many sin issues in a manner that would show everyone their sinfulness and need for the Gospel. Jesus said, "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). This statement would have shocked Jesus' hearers because the scribes and Pharisees were fastidious in keeping the law of external rules. A righteousness greater than theirs could only be the imputed righteousness of Christ that changes the heart. Without Christ's righteousness we cannot enter the kingdom.
Given this context, what is the meaning of Matthew 7:1-5? The answer is that we are warned against judging how righteous others are in comparison to ourselves. This passage is a warning against self righteousness. As sinners, we tend to minimize or rationalize our own transgressions and magnify what we see wrong in others. Jesus warns about this because self-righteousness like that of the hypocritical Pharisees will keep a person out of the kingdom of God. It is the poor in spirit and the persecuted who will "inherit the kingdom of God" (Matthew 5:3, 10). These humbled people know they need a savior.
So does Matthew 7:1-5 teach that Christians should accept all teachers and teachings without discrimination? No. This passage concerns peoples' motivations and the degree of their internal righteousness. These matters we are not to judge. Other passages, which we will examine later, are concerned with judging the content of a person's teaching. Before we study those texts, let us examine other passages that are used to suggest that false teachers should not be corrected publicly.
Go to Your Brother in Private Matthew 18
As mentioned earlier, the admonition in Matthew 18 to go to your brother in private if he has sinned is often used to suggest that public teachings should be adjudicated privately. However, Matthew 18 does not address debate about the orthodoxy of someone's public teaching but how to deal with one of Christ's sheep who have strayed into sin. Let us examine the passage in context.
Matthew 18 begins with the disciples discussing who would be the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus saw a danger in their attitude that could be very harmful to the church. The rest of Matthew 18 deals with relationships in the church, particularly how the "little ones" (meaning believers not young children - Matthew 18:6) are treated. The problem Jesus foresees in the discussion of who is greatest, is that "little ones" (believers who may appear unimportant to those concerned about their own "greatness") would be mistreated by those whose motives are wrong. Matthew 18 contains teachings to insure that every believer is seen as important and every effort is put forth to preserve their spiritual well-being.
In this context, we read this:
And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:15-17)
At issue is a "little one" who has become a straying sheep (Matthew 18:12). The tendency is for people who are seeking greatness in the kingdom to allow the sinner to wander off and perish rather than put forth the effort to preserve him or her. Jesus said, "Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish" (Matthew 18:14). As we have seen, the little ones are believers, and it is not God's will that a believer perishes. So the "lost sheep" that is rescued is a straying believer.
Given the immediate context, reproving in private someone who sins shows a willingness to take steps to keep one of the Lord's flock from perishing. It is not specified what particular sin may be at issue, but rather what the motives of the church members (i.e., disciples of Jesus Christ) are. They are to care about the well being of the little ones who may not appear important to others, but who are important to God.
The entire process outlined in Matthew 18 is about preserving church members from perishing. If the process does not result in the person repenting, they are to be assumed to be a lost sinner (a Gentile and a tax-gatherer). Lost sinners are the subject of gospel preaching. Any true Christian who has been confronted by this process will seek repentance and restoration. Those who claim a right to sin however they see fit show no evidence of regeneration. They are not "little ones" but targets for the gospel.
So, does this passage tell us that public false teaching should never be corrected or judged without first gaining the permission of the false teacher? No. As we shall see in many other passages, false teaching cannot be allowed into the church for precisely the reason Jesus tells us to care for the flock. The spiritual well-being of His "little ones" is more important than that aspirations of those who deem themselves "greatest in the kingdom." The flock must be protected and preserved. Allowing wolves into the congregation under the guise of Matthew 18 would be a horrible abuse of the passage.
Notice that verse 16 says that two or three witnesses should confirm "every fact." This is important, because someone could falsely accuse another of sin. What is being confirmed by the witnesses is that the person in question is guilty of the sin and refuses to change. In the case of publicly broadcast and published teachings, there is no need for this process because the "facts" are already public knowledge. What is needed is to compare the teachings to Scripture, not determine if the person is committing a sin and hiding it. At issue in public teaching is the integrity of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not sin in the local fellowship.
Do Not Pass Judgment - 1Corinthians 4
Paul warns the Corinthians about wrongly passing judgment: "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God" (1Corinthians 4:5). This passage indicates that there are some things we will not know until God's future judgment. One of these things is mentioned in this passage: "the motives of men's hearts." We should avoid judging what we do not know. People's motives are often hidden from us, but their teachings are public information.
Consider what Paul said in Philippians:
Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice. (Philippians 1:15-18)
It is not clear how Paul knew about these bad motives, but it is instructive to see his response. Because the content of their message was the true gospel, Paul rejoiced. This is in clear contrast to what he said elsewhere when the content of the message was wrong: "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). It is safe to assume that an angel from heaven would be a nice person with good motives. But a false gospel is damning and still must be rejected. There are many "nice people" with damnable false teachings.
The content of the wrong judgment that the Corinthians were making had to do with matters that cannot be known now:
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1Corinthians 4:6, 7)
As shown also in 1Corinthians 1, they were in the habit of judging who was superior and aligning themselves with human personalities. Paul is telling them not to do that. Who is superior spiritually is not known, and will not be known until God passes judgment in the future. But what can be known is "what is written." There is an objective standard for judging teaching, but not for judging motives and the relative superiority of personalities.
We have seen a consistent theme so far. We are not to judge the motives or the relative degree of righteousness of other believers. But we must judge what is taught, whether it is in accordance with the true gospel and what has been written in Scripture.
There is another matter concerning judgment that also concerns judging teachings, but most people misunderstand it. This is the section of Scripture in Matthew 7 about judging by the fruits.
You Will Know Them by Their Fruits - Matthew 7
Jesus' teaching that, "You will know them by their fruits," is well known and often repeated. What is amazing, however, is that most of the time people come to conclusions about what this means that have nothing to do with the issues Jesus raises in Matthew 7. They often think of "fruits" as being character qualities, popularity, or the ability to do supernatural signs. I will discuss each of these ideas and then show what Jesus did mean.
Let us examine the passage. In Matthew 7 Jesus warned about false prophets:
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. (Matthew 7:15-17)
First, personality traits are not fruits. On the outside, false prophets look like sheep. They are often very nice people who are kind, endearing, disarming, affable, winsome, and possess many other wonderful qualities. The false idea that these qualities are what Jesus means by "fruits" causes many people to be misled by false prophets. What they fail to realize is that the Dalai Lama has such qualities and he is hardly a Christian. Having a charming exterior is often the "sheep's clothing."
The number of one's followers is not fruit. Many assume that popularity is a sign of good fruit. But the context shows something entirely different: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matthew 7:13, 14). The false religious leaders of Israel had more followers than Jesus did. This can hardly be what Jesus meant by "fruit."
And signs and wonders are not fruits. Again we must consult the context:
So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.' (Matthew 7:20-23)
People who call Jesus "Lord," come in His name, and do works of power are false prophets if they refused to abide within God-given boundaries. This is an important concept. This is lawlessness.
The boundaries are those that God's ordained spokespersons set. For us, they are the teachings of Christ and His apostles (See Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:3, 4). Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted and to whom we must listen (Deuteronomy 18:15; Mark 9:2-7; John 5:46, 47; et. al.). The book of Hebrews contains this warning: "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:18, 19). Lawlessness disregards the terms of the covenant. Jesus has revealed the terms and boundaries of legal belief and practice under the new covenant, like Moses did under the old. John warned about this in his second epistle: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2John 1:9).
Understood in this way, false prophets are those who teach and practice lawlessness. They do not abide within the once-for-all determined boundaries of New Testament teaching. We can see this as we continue in our Matthew 7 passage:
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall. (Matthew 7:24-27)
The lawless ones do not abide by the teachings of Christ. They are the false prophets. The fruits by which they are known are their teachings, not their personalities, the number of their followers, or their miracles.
To underscore how important judging teaching is, we will examine Paul's address to the elders in Jerusalem. We will see that guarding the flock is a key duty of pastors and elders.
Church Leaders and Wolves
Paul's address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 instructs about the duty of Christian leaders to proclaim the truth and to guard the flock against wolves. First Paul recalled his previous practice in Ephesus:
How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:20, 21)
Preaching that people should repent and believe is an important theme in Luke/Acts (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30, 31; Acts 26:17-20; et al). Paul's preaching resulted in the formation of a church in Ephesus. Elders were appointed, and these were addressed by Paul as he headed to Jerusalem. What he said to them reveals what is truly important for all churches.
And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. (Acts 20:27)
Notice, first of all, that the phrase "preaching the kingdom" is synonymously parallel with his description of his preaching in verse 21, "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." The message of the kingdom was not some message like the social gospel as some claim today, but the gospel of the kingdom is repentance and faith (see Mark 1:14, 15). These are the terms of entrance into the kingdom.
Secondly, notice that Paul claimed innocence from bloodguiltiness. This means that had he not proclaimed both the terms of entrance into the kingdom, and the whole of what God has revealed of His purposes, Paul would have imperiled their souls, failed his sacred mission, and brought guilt upon himself for failing to warn them of coming judgment (see Ezekiel 33:6). These same responsibilities apply to pastors and other church leaders today. This is so very important because the flock must be equipped to withstand the onslaught of the inevitable wolves who will arise.
These wolves are the subject of Paul's warning to the church leaders:
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)
It is important to see that the wolves come from two sources: outside and inside the church. Wolves are always inimical to the well-being of sheep. It is the responsibility of shepherds to make sure the sheep are safe from the wolves. To do this, the wolves must be identified. The way they are identified is through their teachings. Paul described the practice of the wolves: "speaking perverse things." The word "perverse" means "twisted" or "distorted." Their teachings are a distortion of the authoritative teachings of Christ and His apostles. Anyone is a wolf who purposely gives distorted teaching and refuses to repent when shown his error from the Scriptures. The elders must guard the flock against such people.
Notice what happens through the teachings of the wolves: they "draw away the disciples after them." False teachers and prophets have a message that comes from themselves, not from the whole counsel of God. The reason these wolves draw disciples away after themselves is that they are the only source of this teaching. If the church is proclaiming the true terms of the covenant and the whole counsel of God, whatever "perverse" doctrine is being promoted by wolves will not be heard from the faithful pastors and elders. Perverse doctrine cannot be found through valid implications from authoritative Scripture. Therefore, if the wolves succeed in giving some of the sheep an appetite for what they are offering, the sheep will have to follow the wolves to get that appetite fed. Since this is not from God, they are being drawn away from the true sheepfold and into spiritual peril and perhaps damnation.
This is a very serious situation. In John 10 Jesus uses a sheepfold analogy to show that robbers do not go through the true door: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1). Jesus is the door of the sheep (John 10:7). Jesus has ascended bodily into heaven. His teachings as given in the New Testament delineate the boundaries of the sheepfold. The elders of the church are responsible to uphold the true words of Christ and His apostles. They are responsible to identify those robbers who will not abide in the teachings of Christ. False teachers refuse to do this job: "He who is a hireling, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling, and is not concerned about the sheep" (John 10:12, 13). Jesus is the true Shepherd, and the under-shepherds (the term "pastor" is from the word "shepherd") are to feed the sheep the pure words of God and guard them from perverted words. Those who refuse to do so are hirelings.
Paul's Warning Comes True
Timothy became a key church leader in Ephesus where Paul had warned the elders about wolves. Paul's warning came true. We learn from the epistles to Timothy that false teachers did arise, some of them likely were elders themselves. This provides the background for Paul's admonitions in Timothy about correcting error, upholding the standard of sound doctrine, and the qualifications of true elders.
Paul specified to Timothy who the false teachers were by name:
This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme. (1Timothy 1:18-20)
The reason false teachers are dealt with publicly is that their teaching is public. One does not need two or three witnesses or a private meeting to determine if a public teaching is Biblical or not. Everyone who heard them knows what they believe and teach. At issue is whether the teaching is Biblical. False teaching damages the church, and it cannot be tolerated. In the Greek, it says they made shipwreck "in regard to the faith." The definite article indicates that it was the content of their teaching that was wrong. It was not in accordance with "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
Paul, after giving instructions about the qualifications of elders, reminds Timothy of the key role of the church: "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth" (1Timothy 3:15). Elders and pastors who disregard sound doctrine cannot be tolerated. When they teach false doctrine, their conduct is unacceptable. They are responsible to make sure the church is the "pillar and support of the truth."
Paul predicts that in the later times people will give heed to "deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1Timothy 4:1). Paul urges Timothy to instruct the church about this important matter of warning against false teachings and promoting the truth: "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following" (1Timothy 4:6). Today many despise the very term doctrine and accuse those of being wrongly motivated who think it is important to correct false doctrine and espouse true doctrine. This is not at all what Paul told Timothy: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you" (1Timothy 4:16). Teachings have consequences--eternal consequences. If false teaching is allowed into the church, peoples' salvation is in jeopardy.
The duty of elders and pastors to protect the flock from false teaching, and to nourish the flock with sound teaching always has been foremost. But in the last days, the battle intensifies. We are living in an age of delusion and apostasy. So now, more than ever, we must confront false teaching and not allow it into the church. Paul made this admonition and prediction:
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. (2Timothy 4:1-4)
If people do not want to hear sound doctrine because of end time delusion, preach sound doctrine to them! The ability and willingness to do so is a requirement for elders: "[H]olding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9).
The duties of pastors and elders are very clear in Acts 20 and the Pastoral Epistles. They are to teach true doctrine, correct false doctrine, and protect the flock from the wolves. Sadly, those who do so today are often accused of being divisive or sinning because they have "judged" when Jesus told us not to judge. This is a category error. We are not to judge motives or relative degrees of righteousness, but we must judge public teaching.
Paul Publicly Rebukes Peter
In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he publicly corrected Peter:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews"? (Galatians 2:11-14)
Paul publicly rebuked Peter for publicly denying in action what Paul knew Peter privately believed. Paul called Peter's actions, "[being] not straightforward about the truth of the gospel." Peter's actions implied that Gentile Christians were still "unclean" unless they submitted to Jewish food laws. This is a denial of what was decided at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. They had determined there to not require that the Gentiles follow the Law of Moses.
The irony is that Peter himself was the spokesman who convinced the church that this was right:
And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.' (Acts 15:7-11)
Paul knew that he and Peter believed the same thing; they had both agreed to the decision of the council. There was no reason to go to Peter privately to correct his belief. Paul immediately dealt with the issue publicly, "in the presence of all." Peter's public practice negated his private confession. Being "straightforward about the gospel" means that what we preach and practice in public must be the same as the beliefs we hold privately. The New Testament calls any disjuncture between the two, "hypocrisy."
What happens often today is that public teachers proclaim false doctrines. When confronted about this, they point to an orthodox statement of faith. But what they teach publicly is damaging to those who hear them. Whatever they may claim to believe, their public false teaching needs to be publicly confronted.
What We Can and Cannot Judge
We have seen that we are not to judge motives. We are not to judge relative degrees of personal piety. What these have in common is the factor that they are unknown. Motives are hidden. Only God knows the heart. We do not know who is more righteous or pious than whom.
We are not to accuse someone of sin without two or three witnesses. The criterion for two or three witnesses exists to keep one person from bringing false witness against another and having them wrongly come under church discipline. But if there are witnesses, the facts are considered "known" and judgment can be made. In every situation, the hope is for repentance and restoration of the individual. Paul wrote, "This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (2Corinthians 13:1). As verse 2 of this passage shows, the issue was about "those who have sinned."
There is another issue about wrong judgment. According to Romans 14 we are not to judge matters of conscience that are not universal commands. Here is what Paul wrote:
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:1-4)
Later in this chapter of Romans Paul warns against judging one's brother on matters that fall under the category of Christian liberty - food and the observance of certain days (Romans 14:4-10). It would be wrong to exclude a weaker brother from fellowship because he has a more active conscience in certain areas where the Bible legitimately allows liberty. But, if that weaker brother demanded that his scruples be followed by everyone else as a condition of fellowship, he would become an illegitimate lawgiver and should be withstood and ultimately, if he remained unrepentant, expelled from fellowship.
What is wrong with illegitimate law-givers is that they are claiming to know that someone is sinning when they are not. This is tantamount to making one's self God's lawgiver. To judge like this is to claim to know (that some certain action of another person is sin) what one does not know.
However we can judge what is true or false, sinful or righteous, based on what has been revealed in Scripture. Publicly proclaimed teachings can be judged to be false and should be publicly refuted. Paul did this. Paul told Timothy to do this. Paul gave all elders the responsibility to do this. The church must be warned about wolves when they arise, whether from inside the church or without. Likewise prophecy must be judged by the objective criteria of the Bible (1Corinthians 14:29; 1Thessalonians 5:21).
There is important action to be taken: We can and we must judge what we can know objectively, but we must not judge what we cannot know objectively. Ask yourself when you make a judgment, "can I know this with certainty"? If the answer is no, we cannot judge. If the answer is yes and the issue concerns Biblical doctrine or sin, we not only may judge; we must judge. Publicly proclaimed teaching falls into this category.
Conclusion
Too often people wrongly claim that if an author writes a book, or a preacher preaches a sermon, that no one is permitted to make judgments about the contents of these teachings without first asking the author's or preacher's permission. Paul did not ask Peter's permission to publicly rebuke him nor did he ask Hymenaeus' and Alexander's permission to rebuke them for teaching false doctrine. Claiming that false teachers have the right to spread their teachings throughout the body of Christ until such time that a Matthew 18 procedure is set up and implemented is a category error. Matthew 18 concerns the accusation of sin brought by one member of a congregation against another. This requires two or three witness if personal confrontation is ineffective.
Teachings that are published far and wide do not need two or three witnesses; everyone can see what is being taught for themselves. These teachings must be judged to be biblical or unbiblical. Those who bring false teaching should be publicly corrected. If they continue to bring false teaching and disregard the faith once for all delivered to the saints, they should be considered wolves and the flock must be guarded from them.
Today the teachings of the wolves come by way of the TV, radio, internet, books, seminars and any other media that is available. No pastor could discuss each of these specific heresies with their authors, nor is it required. What is required is that pastors and elders refute the heresies with sound doctrine, and warn the flock about their pernicious influence. The sad truth is that very few elders or pastors are willing to do this. Many take it as a badge of honor that they correct no one, and glibly allow the wolves to devour the flock under the guise of humility and unity. If we refuse to judge false teaching, we have neglected our God-given responsibilities.
I just received an email from an elder of a local church that told me that I should be going directly to the people that I dispute. What he does not understand is that when a pastor or anyone posts something publicaly on the internet, radio, television, book, etc. for the world to see, we do not have to go directly to that person.
Below is a well written article by Pastor Bob DeWaay defining the believers Biblical call to judge.
It is not surprising that people are confused about the matter of passing judgment because some scriptures tell us we must make judgments and discern, and others warn us not to judge. We will see that Scripture provides straightforward, objective guidelines concerning making judgments and that both the commands to judge and the commands not to judge are understandable - and they are to be obeyed.
Do Not Judge - Matthew 7
The following teaching from the Sermon on the Mount warns us not to judge:
Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
Before we interpret those verses we must look at the sermon in Matthew that preceded it. The Sermon on the Mount concerns motives and sin. For example, the hypocrite prays to be "seen of men" (Matthew 6:5). Jesus' sermon contains warnings against anger (Matthew 5:22), lust (Matthew 5:28), a command to love one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) and a warning against loving money (Matthew 6:24). Jesus addresses many sin issues in a manner that would show everyone their sinfulness and need for the Gospel. Jesus said, "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). This statement would have shocked Jesus' hearers because the scribes and Pharisees were fastidious in keeping the law of external rules. A righteousness greater than theirs could only be the imputed righteousness of Christ that changes the heart. Without Christ's righteousness we cannot enter the kingdom.
Given this context, what is the meaning of Matthew 7:1-5? The answer is that we are warned against judging how righteous others are in comparison to ourselves. This passage is a warning against self righteousness. As sinners, we tend to minimize or rationalize our own transgressions and magnify what we see wrong in others. Jesus warns about this because self-righteousness like that of the hypocritical Pharisees will keep a person out of the kingdom of God. It is the poor in spirit and the persecuted who will "inherit the kingdom of God" (Matthew 5:3, 10). These humbled people know they need a savior.
So does Matthew 7:1-5 teach that Christians should accept all teachers and teachings without discrimination? No. This passage concerns peoples' motivations and the degree of their internal righteousness. These matters we are not to judge. Other passages, which we will examine later, are concerned with judging the content of a person's teaching. Before we study those texts, let us examine other passages that are used to suggest that false teachers should not be corrected publicly.
Go to Your Brother in Private Matthew 18
As mentioned earlier, the admonition in Matthew 18 to go to your brother in private if he has sinned is often used to suggest that public teachings should be adjudicated privately. However, Matthew 18 does not address debate about the orthodoxy of someone's public teaching but how to deal with one of Christ's sheep who have strayed into sin. Let us examine the passage in context.
Matthew 18 begins with the disciples discussing who would be the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus saw a danger in their attitude that could be very harmful to the church. The rest of Matthew 18 deals with relationships in the church, particularly how the "little ones" (meaning believers not young children - Matthew 18:6) are treated. The problem Jesus foresees in the discussion of who is greatest, is that "little ones" (believers who may appear unimportant to those concerned about their own "greatness") would be mistreated by those whose motives are wrong. Matthew 18 contains teachings to insure that every believer is seen as important and every effort is put forth to preserve their spiritual well-being.
In this context, we read this:
And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:15-17)
At issue is a "little one" who has become a straying sheep (Matthew 18:12). The tendency is for people who are seeking greatness in the kingdom to allow the sinner to wander off and perish rather than put forth the effort to preserve him or her. Jesus said, "Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish" (Matthew 18:14). As we have seen, the little ones are believers, and it is not God's will that a believer perishes. So the "lost sheep" that is rescued is a straying believer.
Given the immediate context, reproving in private someone who sins shows a willingness to take steps to keep one of the Lord's flock from perishing. It is not specified what particular sin may be at issue, but rather what the motives of the church members (i.e., disciples of Jesus Christ) are. They are to care about the well being of the little ones who may not appear important to others, but who are important to God.
The entire process outlined in Matthew 18 is about preserving church members from perishing. If the process does not result in the person repenting, they are to be assumed to be a lost sinner (a Gentile and a tax-gatherer). Lost sinners are the subject of gospel preaching. Any true Christian who has been confronted by this process will seek repentance and restoration. Those who claim a right to sin however they see fit show no evidence of regeneration. They are not "little ones" but targets for the gospel.
So, does this passage tell us that public false teaching should never be corrected or judged without first gaining the permission of the false teacher? No. As we shall see in many other passages, false teaching cannot be allowed into the church for precisely the reason Jesus tells us to care for the flock. The spiritual well-being of His "little ones" is more important than that aspirations of those who deem themselves "greatest in the kingdom." The flock must be protected and preserved. Allowing wolves into the congregation under the guise of Matthew 18 would be a horrible abuse of the passage.
Notice that verse 16 says that two or three witnesses should confirm "every fact." This is important, because someone could falsely accuse another of sin. What is being confirmed by the witnesses is that the person in question is guilty of the sin and refuses to change. In the case of publicly broadcast and published teachings, there is no need for this process because the "facts" are already public knowledge. What is needed is to compare the teachings to Scripture, not determine if the person is committing a sin and hiding it. At issue in public teaching is the integrity of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not sin in the local fellowship.
Do Not Pass Judgment - 1Corinthians 4
Paul warns the Corinthians about wrongly passing judgment: "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God" (1Corinthians 4:5). This passage indicates that there are some things we will not know until God's future judgment. One of these things is mentioned in this passage: "the motives of men's hearts." We should avoid judging what we do not know. People's motives are often hidden from us, but their teachings are public information.
Consider what Paul said in Philippians:
Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice. (Philippians 1:15-18)
It is not clear how Paul knew about these bad motives, but it is instructive to see his response. Because the content of their message was the true gospel, Paul rejoiced. This is in clear contrast to what he said elsewhere when the content of the message was wrong: "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). It is safe to assume that an angel from heaven would be a nice person with good motives. But a false gospel is damning and still must be rejected. There are many "nice people" with damnable false teachings.
The content of the wrong judgment that the Corinthians were making had to do with matters that cannot be known now:
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1Corinthians 4:6, 7)
As shown also in 1Corinthians 1, they were in the habit of judging who was superior and aligning themselves with human personalities. Paul is telling them not to do that. Who is superior spiritually is not known, and will not be known until God passes judgment in the future. But what can be known is "what is written." There is an objective standard for judging teaching, but not for judging motives and the relative superiority of personalities.
We have seen a consistent theme so far. We are not to judge the motives or the relative degree of righteousness of other believers. But we must judge what is taught, whether it is in accordance with the true gospel and what has been written in Scripture.
There is another matter concerning judgment that also concerns judging teachings, but most people misunderstand it. This is the section of Scripture in Matthew 7 about judging by the fruits.
You Will Know Them by Their Fruits - Matthew 7
Jesus' teaching that, "You will know them by their fruits," is well known and often repeated. What is amazing, however, is that most of the time people come to conclusions about what this means that have nothing to do with the issues Jesus raises in Matthew 7. They often think of "fruits" as being character qualities, popularity, or the ability to do supernatural signs. I will discuss each of these ideas and then show what Jesus did mean.
Let us examine the passage. In Matthew 7 Jesus warned about false prophets:
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. (Matthew 7:15-17)
First, personality traits are not fruits. On the outside, false prophets look like sheep. They are often very nice people who are kind, endearing, disarming, affable, winsome, and possess many other wonderful qualities. The false idea that these qualities are what Jesus means by "fruits" causes many people to be misled by false prophets. What they fail to realize is that the Dalai Lama has such qualities and he is hardly a Christian. Having a charming exterior is often the "sheep's clothing."
The number of one's followers is not fruit. Many assume that popularity is a sign of good fruit. But the context shows something entirely different: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matthew 7:13, 14). The false religious leaders of Israel had more followers than Jesus did. This can hardly be what Jesus meant by "fruit."
And signs and wonders are not fruits. Again we must consult the context:
So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.' (Matthew 7:20-23)
People who call Jesus "Lord," come in His name, and do works of power are false prophets if they refused to abide within God-given boundaries. This is an important concept. This is lawlessness.
The boundaries are those that God's ordained spokespersons set. For us, they are the teachings of Christ and His apostles (See Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:3, 4). Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted and to whom we must listen (Deuteronomy 18:15; Mark 9:2-7; John 5:46, 47; et. al.). The book of Hebrews contains this warning: "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:18, 19). Lawlessness disregards the terms of the covenant. Jesus has revealed the terms and boundaries of legal belief and practice under the new covenant, like Moses did under the old. John warned about this in his second epistle: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2John 1:9).
Understood in this way, false prophets are those who teach and practice lawlessness. They do not abide within the once-for-all determined boundaries of New Testament teaching. We can see this as we continue in our Matthew 7 passage:
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall. (Matthew 7:24-27)
The lawless ones do not abide by the teachings of Christ. They are the false prophets. The fruits by which they are known are their teachings, not their personalities, the number of their followers, or their miracles.
To underscore how important judging teaching is, we will examine Paul's address to the elders in Jerusalem. We will see that guarding the flock is a key duty of pastors and elders.
Church Leaders and Wolves
Paul's address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 instructs about the duty of Christian leaders to proclaim the truth and to guard the flock against wolves. First Paul recalled his previous practice in Ephesus:
How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:20, 21)
Preaching that people should repent and believe is an important theme in Luke/Acts (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30, 31; Acts 26:17-20; et al). Paul's preaching resulted in the formation of a church in Ephesus. Elders were appointed, and these were addressed by Paul as he headed to Jerusalem. What he said to them reveals what is truly important for all churches.
And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. (Acts 20:27)
Notice, first of all, that the phrase "preaching the kingdom" is synonymously parallel with his description of his preaching in verse 21, "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." The message of the kingdom was not some message like the social gospel as some claim today, but the gospel of the kingdom is repentance and faith (see Mark 1:14, 15). These are the terms of entrance into the kingdom.
Secondly, notice that Paul claimed innocence from bloodguiltiness. This means that had he not proclaimed both the terms of entrance into the kingdom, and the whole of what God has revealed of His purposes, Paul would have imperiled their souls, failed his sacred mission, and brought guilt upon himself for failing to warn them of coming judgment (see Ezekiel 33:6). These same responsibilities apply to pastors and other church leaders today. This is so very important because the flock must be equipped to withstand the onslaught of the inevitable wolves who will arise.
These wolves are the subject of Paul's warning to the church leaders:
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)
It is important to see that the wolves come from two sources: outside and inside the church. Wolves are always inimical to the well-being of sheep. It is the responsibility of shepherds to make sure the sheep are safe from the wolves. To do this, the wolves must be identified. The way they are identified is through their teachings. Paul described the practice of the wolves: "speaking perverse things." The word "perverse" means "twisted" or "distorted." Their teachings are a distortion of the authoritative teachings of Christ and His apostles. Anyone is a wolf who purposely gives distorted teaching and refuses to repent when shown his error from the Scriptures. The elders must guard the flock against such people.
Notice what happens through the teachings of the wolves: they "draw away the disciples after them." False teachers and prophets have a message that comes from themselves, not from the whole counsel of God. The reason these wolves draw disciples away after themselves is that they are the only source of this teaching. If the church is proclaiming the true terms of the covenant and the whole counsel of God, whatever "perverse" doctrine is being promoted by wolves will not be heard from the faithful pastors and elders. Perverse doctrine cannot be found through valid implications from authoritative Scripture. Therefore, if the wolves succeed in giving some of the sheep an appetite for what they are offering, the sheep will have to follow the wolves to get that appetite fed. Since this is not from God, they are being drawn away from the true sheepfold and into spiritual peril and perhaps damnation.
This is a very serious situation. In John 10 Jesus uses a sheepfold analogy to show that robbers do not go through the true door: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1). Jesus is the door of the sheep (John 10:7). Jesus has ascended bodily into heaven. His teachings as given in the New Testament delineate the boundaries of the sheepfold. The elders of the church are responsible to uphold the true words of Christ and His apostles. They are responsible to identify those robbers who will not abide in the teachings of Christ. False teachers refuse to do this job: "He who is a hireling, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling, and is not concerned about the sheep" (John 10:12, 13). Jesus is the true Shepherd, and the under-shepherds (the term "pastor" is from the word "shepherd") are to feed the sheep the pure words of God and guard them from perverted words. Those who refuse to do so are hirelings.
Paul's Warning Comes True
Timothy became a key church leader in Ephesus where Paul had warned the elders about wolves. Paul's warning came true. We learn from the epistles to Timothy that false teachers did arise, some of them likely were elders themselves. This provides the background for Paul's admonitions in Timothy about correcting error, upholding the standard of sound doctrine, and the qualifications of true elders.
Paul specified to Timothy who the false teachers were by name:
This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme. (1Timothy 1:18-20)
The reason false teachers are dealt with publicly is that their teaching is public. One does not need two or three witnesses or a private meeting to determine if a public teaching is Biblical or not. Everyone who heard them knows what they believe and teach. At issue is whether the teaching is Biblical. False teaching damages the church, and it cannot be tolerated. In the Greek, it says they made shipwreck "in regard to the faith." The definite article indicates that it was the content of their teaching that was wrong. It was not in accordance with "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
Paul, after giving instructions about the qualifications of elders, reminds Timothy of the key role of the church: "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth" (1Timothy 3:15). Elders and pastors who disregard sound doctrine cannot be tolerated. When they teach false doctrine, their conduct is unacceptable. They are responsible to make sure the church is the "pillar and support of the truth."
Paul predicts that in the later times people will give heed to "deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1Timothy 4:1). Paul urges Timothy to instruct the church about this important matter of warning against false teachings and promoting the truth: "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following" (1Timothy 4:6). Today many despise the very term doctrine and accuse those of being wrongly motivated who think it is important to correct false doctrine and espouse true doctrine. This is not at all what Paul told Timothy: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you" (1Timothy 4:16). Teachings have consequences--eternal consequences. If false teaching is allowed into the church, peoples' salvation is in jeopardy.
The duty of elders and pastors to protect the flock from false teaching, and to nourish the flock with sound teaching always has been foremost. But in the last days, the battle intensifies. We are living in an age of delusion and apostasy. So now, more than ever, we must confront false teaching and not allow it into the church. Paul made this admonition and prediction:
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. (2Timothy 4:1-4)
If people do not want to hear sound doctrine because of end time delusion, preach sound doctrine to them! The ability and willingness to do so is a requirement for elders: "[H]olding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9).
The duties of pastors and elders are very clear in Acts 20 and the Pastoral Epistles. They are to teach true doctrine, correct false doctrine, and protect the flock from the wolves. Sadly, those who do so today are often accused of being divisive or sinning because they have "judged" when Jesus told us not to judge. This is a category error. We are not to judge motives or relative degrees of righteousness, but we must judge public teaching.
Paul Publicly Rebukes Peter
In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he publicly corrected Peter:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews"? (Galatians 2:11-14)
Paul publicly rebuked Peter for publicly denying in action what Paul knew Peter privately believed. Paul called Peter's actions, "[being] not straightforward about the truth of the gospel." Peter's actions implied that Gentile Christians were still "unclean" unless they submitted to Jewish food laws. This is a denial of what was decided at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. They had determined there to not require that the Gentiles follow the Law of Moses.
The irony is that Peter himself was the spokesman who convinced the church that this was right:
And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.' (Acts 15:7-11)
Paul knew that he and Peter believed the same thing; they had both agreed to the decision of the council. There was no reason to go to Peter privately to correct his belief. Paul immediately dealt with the issue publicly, "in the presence of all." Peter's public practice negated his private confession. Being "straightforward about the gospel" means that what we preach and practice in public must be the same as the beliefs we hold privately. The New Testament calls any disjuncture between the two, "hypocrisy."
What happens often today is that public teachers proclaim false doctrines. When confronted about this, they point to an orthodox statement of faith. But what they teach publicly is damaging to those who hear them. Whatever they may claim to believe, their public false teaching needs to be publicly confronted.
What We Can and Cannot Judge
We have seen that we are not to judge motives. We are not to judge relative degrees of personal piety. What these have in common is the factor that they are unknown. Motives are hidden. Only God knows the heart. We do not know who is more righteous or pious than whom.
We are not to accuse someone of sin without two or three witnesses. The criterion for two or three witnesses exists to keep one person from bringing false witness against another and having them wrongly come under church discipline. But if there are witnesses, the facts are considered "known" and judgment can be made. In every situation, the hope is for repentance and restoration of the individual. Paul wrote, "This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (2Corinthians 13:1). As verse 2 of this passage shows, the issue was about "those who have sinned."
There is another issue about wrong judgment. According to Romans 14 we are not to judge matters of conscience that are not universal commands. Here is what Paul wrote:
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:1-4)
Later in this chapter of Romans Paul warns against judging one's brother on matters that fall under the category of Christian liberty - food and the observance of certain days (Romans 14:4-10). It would be wrong to exclude a weaker brother from fellowship because he has a more active conscience in certain areas where the Bible legitimately allows liberty. But, if that weaker brother demanded that his scruples be followed by everyone else as a condition of fellowship, he would become an illegitimate lawgiver and should be withstood and ultimately, if he remained unrepentant, expelled from fellowship.
What is wrong with illegitimate law-givers is that they are claiming to know that someone is sinning when they are not. This is tantamount to making one's self God's lawgiver. To judge like this is to claim to know (that some certain action of another person is sin) what one does not know.
However we can judge what is true or false, sinful or righteous, based on what has been revealed in Scripture. Publicly proclaimed teachings can be judged to be false and should be publicly refuted. Paul did this. Paul told Timothy to do this. Paul gave all elders the responsibility to do this. The church must be warned about wolves when they arise, whether from inside the church or without. Likewise prophecy must be judged by the objective criteria of the Bible (1Corinthians 14:29; 1Thessalonians 5:21).
There is important action to be taken: We can and we must judge what we can know objectively, but we must not judge what we cannot know objectively. Ask yourself when you make a judgment, "can I know this with certainty"? If the answer is no, we cannot judge. If the answer is yes and the issue concerns Biblical doctrine or sin, we not only may judge; we must judge. Publicly proclaimed teaching falls into this category.
Conclusion
Too often people wrongly claim that if an author writes a book, or a preacher preaches a sermon, that no one is permitted to make judgments about the contents of these teachings without first asking the author's or preacher's permission. Paul did not ask Peter's permission to publicly rebuke him nor did he ask Hymenaeus' and Alexander's permission to rebuke them for teaching false doctrine. Claiming that false teachers have the right to spread their teachings throughout the body of Christ until such time that a Matthew 18 procedure is set up and implemented is a category error. Matthew 18 concerns the accusation of sin brought by one member of a congregation against another. This requires two or three witness if personal confrontation is ineffective.
Teachings that are published far and wide do not need two or three witnesses; everyone can see what is being taught for themselves. These teachings must be judged to be biblical or unbiblical. Those who bring false teaching should be publicly corrected. If they continue to bring false teaching and disregard the faith once for all delivered to the saints, they should be considered wolves and the flock must be guarded from them.
Today the teachings of the wolves come by way of the TV, radio, internet, books, seminars and any other media that is available. No pastor could discuss each of these specific heresies with their authors, nor is it required. What is required is that pastors and elders refute the heresies with sound doctrine, and warn the flock about their pernicious influence. The sad truth is that very few elders or pastors are willing to do this. Many take it as a badge of honor that they correct no one, and glibly allow the wolves to devour the flock under the guise of humility and unity. If we refuse to judge false teaching, we have neglected our God-given responsibilities.
"Reformed Stooge":
This was sent to me from my brother in the Lord Corey from Lancater PA, I stand with you brother as a fellow Reformed Stooge for Christ who wants to see a MODERN DAY REFORMATION. The time is at hand for the True Church to stand up and make it's stand for the TRUTH does MATTER.
Reformed: A summary of Reformed theology, or what it means to be Reformed, may be seen in the following: [1]
It means to affirm the great "Sola's" of the Reformation. (See the Five Solas)
It means to affirm and promote a profoundly high view of the sovereignty of God.
It means to affirm the doctrines of grace. . . to see God as the author of salvation from beginning to end. (See Calvinism)
It means to be creedal. . . to affirm the great creeds of the historic, orthodox church. (See e.g. the Nicene Creed)
It means to be confessional. . . to affirm one or more of the great confessions of the historic orthodox church. (see e.g. the Westminster Confession)
It means to be covenantal. . . to affirm the great covenants of Scripture and see those covenants as the means by which God interacts with and accomplishes His purposes in His creation, with mankind. (see Covenant Theology)
It means to take seriously the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. . . to affirm the primacy of mission and understand that mission.
It means to have a distinctly Christian worldview that permeates all of life.
Stooge: Main Entry: 1stooge Pronunciation: 'stüjFunction: nounEtymology: origin unknown1 a : one who plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal b : PUPPET 3 [3 : one whose acts are controlled by an outside force or influence ]
Reformed: A summary of Reformed theology, or what it means to be Reformed, may be seen in the following: [1]
It means to affirm the great "Sola's" of the Reformation. (See the Five Solas)
It means to affirm and promote a profoundly high view of the sovereignty of God.
It means to affirm the doctrines of grace. . . to see God as the author of salvation from beginning to end. (See Calvinism)
It means to be creedal. . . to affirm the great creeds of the historic, orthodox church. (See e.g. the Nicene Creed)
It means to be confessional. . . to affirm one or more of the great confessions of the historic orthodox church. (see e.g. the Westminster Confession)
It means to be covenantal. . . to affirm the great covenants of Scripture and see those covenants as the means by which God interacts with and accomplishes His purposes in His creation, with mankind. (see Covenant Theology)
It means to take seriously the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. . . to affirm the primacy of mission and understand that mission.
It means to have a distinctly Christian worldview that permeates all of life.
Stooge: Main Entry: 1stooge Pronunciation: 'stüjFunction: nounEtymology: origin unknown1 a : one who plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal b : PUPPET 3 [3 : one whose acts are controlled by an outside force or influence ]
Pastor Threatens To Have Congregants Arrested
COATESVILLE, Pa. -- Members of a Chester County church said they have really been at odds with the pastor since he came on board about a year ago.
Images Video
But after receiving a letter that mixed Bible verses along with threats of an arrest if they were to attend church on Sunday, that's when they said the pastor went too far.
"We are in spiritual warfare, we really are ... with our own pastor," said one woman.
It's a rift so deep that Coatesville police stepped in Wednesday to try to resolve the issue after the Rev. Malcolm Finkley of Coatesvillle's Tabernacle Baptist Church reportedly signed and sent the letter to dozens of church members.
Recipients of the letter threatening arrest included 87-year-old Waddell Tucker.
"If you don't agree with him, you've got to go," Tucker said.
Some congregation members told NBC 10 that they have not liked the way Pastor Finkley runs the church or how he conducts himself from the pulpit. When they tried to oust Finkley as they say it states they can in the church bylaws, their vote has been interrupted and not allowed to continue.
The certified letter told several members they were creating an "atmosphere of hostility" and threatened criminal charges if they showed up anymore.
"To tell someone who has been coming to this church for over 60 years that, 'You can't come into the church because I say so,' that's objectionable," said John Robinson, of Coatesville.
NBC 10 tried to ask Finkley about that, but he twice had no comment Wednesday.
Members said they went to the police to see if they could actually be placed under arrest if they showed up to worship God. They said the short answer they received was no.
"We've made multiple attempts to set up meetings with him to try to discuss some issues that we had concerns about. That was unsuccessful," said church member Charles Ward.
It's a holy war that church members said has no winners.
"Just want to go to church and praise the Lord," Ward said.
NBC 10's Jamison Uhler said that he did find members who said they were happy with the church's new leadership and direction, and they said they were sad to see that other members were standing in the pastor's way.
Images Video
But after receiving a letter that mixed Bible verses along with threats of an arrest if they were to attend church on Sunday, that's when they said the pastor went too far.
"We are in spiritual warfare, we really are ... with our own pastor," said one woman.
It's a rift so deep that Coatesville police stepped in Wednesday to try to resolve the issue after the Rev. Malcolm Finkley of Coatesvillle's Tabernacle Baptist Church reportedly signed and sent the letter to dozens of church members.
Recipients of the letter threatening arrest included 87-year-old Waddell Tucker.
"If you don't agree with him, you've got to go," Tucker said.
Some congregation members told NBC 10 that they have not liked the way Pastor Finkley runs the church or how he conducts himself from the pulpit. When they tried to oust Finkley as they say it states they can in the church bylaws, their vote has been interrupted and not allowed to continue.
The certified letter told several members they were creating an "atmosphere of hostility" and threatened criminal charges if they showed up anymore.
"To tell someone who has been coming to this church for over 60 years that, 'You can't come into the church because I say so,' that's objectionable," said John Robinson, of Coatesville.
NBC 10 tried to ask Finkley about that, but he twice had no comment Wednesday.
Members said they went to the police to see if they could actually be placed under arrest if they showed up to worship God. They said the short answer they received was no.
"We've made multiple attempts to set up meetings with him to try to discuss some issues that we had concerns about. That was unsuccessful," said church member Charles Ward.
It's a holy war that church members said has no winners.
"Just want to go to church and praise the Lord," Ward said.
NBC 10's Jamison Uhler said that he did find members who said they were happy with the church's new leadership and direction, and they said they were sad to see that other members were standing in the pastor's way.
Rick Warren 'Works With' and 'Strengthens' Mormon Churches and Other Non-Christian Sects
Did you know that Rick Warren and Saddleback church will work with and help ANY church become "Purpose-Driven" regardless of its 'doctrinal convictions'?
Here is what Saddleback Church said last week:
"There are Purpose Driven congregations in more than 200 different denominations and associations. Our desire is to work with denominations to strengthen their churches. Each church can maintain its own heritage and doctrinal convictions while cooperating with others on accomplishing the five purposes" (Online Source)
By their own admission Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven ministries will 'work with' and 'strengthen' ANY church.
Where does this 'strengthening' and 'working with' take place?
Answer: At a Purpose-Driven Church Pastor Training Conference
What happens at these Pastor Training Conferences? Here is what the Purpose-Driven website says:
The Purpose Driven model offers leaders in your church a unique, biblically-based approach to help them establish, transform, or maintain a balanced, growing congregation. What is a balanced, growing congregation? It’s one that is growing larger in numbers as it grows deeper in carrying out the God-given purposes for churches... (Online Source)
Conference Sessions include workshops on:
• Targeting Your Community for Evangelism - Understanding Who You are Trying to Reach
• Attracting a Crowd - How to Design Seeker-Sensitive Services
• Building Your Congregation - Turning Attenders into Members
• Structuring Your Church on Purpose - How to Organize Your Church for Growth
Did you know that these training sessions are attended by Mormons, Catholics and Jews?
Here is what Rick Warren told USAToday about his "Purpose Driven" training programs:
"Warren's pastor-training programs welcome Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jews and ordained women." (Online Source)
Wait a minute! Mormons and Jews are NOT Christians. How on Earth can a "Christian Pastor" 'work with' them and help them 'strengthen' and grow their congregations?
Here is Rick Warren's explanation for training Mormons and Jews. Said Warren:
"I'm not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials. I won't try to change other denominations. Why be divisive?"
Since when is helping to strengthen and grow a non-Christian church a "non-essential"?
Christians are not called upon to help train non-Christian churches on how to strengthen and grow their congregations! Those congregations are sending people to hell? We don't want them to be healthy, strong and growing. We want those non-Christian churches to shrink and die by having their members repent and believe in the true gospel.
Plus, God forbids Christians to do this! Here is what the Bible says on this matter:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 17 “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you.
Sorry, Warren's explanation demonstrates a complete disregard for clear Biblical teaching! Warren said that he didn't want to be 'divisive' but in reality Warren IS being divisive by flatout disobeying God and helping to strengthen and grow these non-Christian sects.
Sadly, Rick Warren is trying to portray himself as being 'magnanimous' by working with leaders from all faiths and "building bridges" with them. But, when you compare what he is doing to what God’s Word tells us to do you'll discover that the correct word to describe Warren's behavior IS "divisive". The reason for this is because he is being openly rebellious to God's clear commands which forbid Christians to be in partnership with false churches and unbelievers.
For those of you tempted to think that USAToday got their facts wrong, please consider this: The week that the USAToday story broke, Rick Warren's Pastors.com website said this about the article:
Click Here to Visit the Pastors.com website
Rather than repudiate the article's claims regarding Warren's training of Mormons and Jews, Rick Warren instead asked for people to pray that the article would be successful in introducing the "The Purpose-Driven Life to a whole new secular audience."
Rick Warren obviously approved of this article and its contents.
Here is what Saddleback Church said last week:
"There are Purpose Driven congregations in more than 200 different denominations and associations. Our desire is to work with denominations to strengthen their churches. Each church can maintain its own heritage and doctrinal convictions while cooperating with others on accomplishing the five purposes" (Online Source)
By their own admission Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven ministries will 'work with' and 'strengthen' ANY church.
Where does this 'strengthening' and 'working with' take place?
Answer: At a Purpose-Driven Church Pastor Training Conference
What happens at these Pastor Training Conferences? Here is what the Purpose-Driven website says:
The Purpose Driven model offers leaders in your church a unique, biblically-based approach to help them establish, transform, or maintain a balanced, growing congregation. What is a balanced, growing congregation? It’s one that is growing larger in numbers as it grows deeper in carrying out the God-given purposes for churches... (Online Source)
Conference Sessions include workshops on:
• Targeting Your Community for Evangelism - Understanding Who You are Trying to Reach
• Attracting a Crowd - How to Design Seeker-Sensitive Services
• Building Your Congregation - Turning Attenders into Members
• Structuring Your Church on Purpose - How to Organize Your Church for Growth
Did you know that these training sessions are attended by Mormons, Catholics and Jews?
Here is what Rick Warren told USAToday about his "Purpose Driven" training programs:
"Warren's pastor-training programs welcome Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jews and ordained women." (Online Source)
Wait a minute! Mormons and Jews are NOT Christians. How on Earth can a "Christian Pastor" 'work with' them and help them 'strengthen' and grow their congregations?
Here is Rick Warren's explanation for training Mormons and Jews. Said Warren:
"I'm not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials. I won't try to change other denominations. Why be divisive?"
Since when is helping to strengthen and grow a non-Christian church a "non-essential"?
Christians are not called upon to help train non-Christian churches on how to strengthen and grow their congregations! Those congregations are sending people to hell? We don't want them to be healthy, strong and growing. We want those non-Christian churches to shrink and die by having their members repent and believe in the true gospel.
Plus, God forbids Christians to do this! Here is what the Bible says on this matter:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 17 “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you.
Sorry, Warren's explanation demonstrates a complete disregard for clear Biblical teaching! Warren said that he didn't want to be 'divisive' but in reality Warren IS being divisive by flatout disobeying God and helping to strengthen and grow these non-Christian sects.
Sadly, Rick Warren is trying to portray himself as being 'magnanimous' by working with leaders from all faiths and "building bridges" with them. But, when you compare what he is doing to what God’s Word tells us to do you'll discover that the correct word to describe Warren's behavior IS "divisive". The reason for this is because he is being openly rebellious to God's clear commands which forbid Christians to be in partnership with false churches and unbelievers.
For those of you tempted to think that USAToday got their facts wrong, please consider this: The week that the USAToday story broke, Rick Warren's Pastors.com website said this about the article:
Click Here to Visit the Pastors.com website
Rather than repudiate the article's claims regarding Warren's training of Mormons and Jews, Rick Warren instead asked for people to pray that the article would be successful in introducing the "The Purpose-Driven Life to a whole new secular audience."
Rick Warren obviously approved of this article and its contents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)