What is false doctrine and deception and what are we supposed to do about it?

[Debbiek]

What is meant in the Bible by false doctrine & deception? We are instructed to severely admonish or rebuke etc those who are involved, but where do we draw the line?

[Christ_†_Alone]

There are so many verses about this topic, I'm not even sure where to start. Titus 3:10 is a good one that directly addresses heretics.

"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject"

Does that answer your question?

[Debbiek]

THank you Christ Alone, but I was aware of that verse, but I don't really know what a heretic would be, other than one who denies Christ? NO I'm a total blank on this thread. False Doctrine i know nothing about . Here I will prove it, lol. Any one verse's misinterpretation could be "false doctrine", so we tell someone twice, hey it really means this, & if they don't agree after the 2nd time, be done with them. Also, if my end time doctrine disagrees with someone else's does that mean we are not to communicate with each other? I know these are not what the Bible intended to mean false doctrine. Are we using this word wrongly today maybe?

[countrymouse]

Debbie,

(I promise I'm not following you around!)

The NT writers dealt with some very specific false doctrines: legalism ("Judaizers"), early gnosticism (denying that Christ came in the flesh), and antinomianism (belief that one could just go on sinning). Those were the big three. The second century church continued to battle these things, as well as heresies about the triune nature of God and misrepresentations of Christ's humanity and divinity.

The only way to guard yourself against believing a false doctrine is to immerse yourself in the Bible; by that I mean read and study it every chance you get, believing that God will teach you from it. Use a version that is readable, but you want a translation rather than a paraphrase. You can't do it in a month or even a year, so be patient with yourself.

And no, every disagreement does not constitute heresy. It's a shame we're so quick to call each other names and make accusations. Still, its important for each one of us to grow to the point where we can defend sound doctrine and expose doctrine that is not Biblical.


Matthew 7:
7. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8. for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9. Or what man is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone;
10. or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?
11. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Keep on seeking, asking, and knocking!

[Debbiek]

Thank you COuntry mouse & CA. I hate to be so personal, & I do not mean to offend anyone, but along these guidelines you mentioned ,I would like to be more specific. SOrry. I am not worried about myself, but I have some family members that I am afraid I may have to depart company with. Has that ever happened to anyone? No offense intended, but would these things classify heresy which would be false doctrine ? Also, I started another thread about defilement trying to understand a reason for their behavior. Also someone asked me to list the scriptures about "once saved always saved", which I dont want to debate anyway. We just have differing views on that. OK, CA pointed out scripture that says we should not talk to these folks anymore. A Buddhist would be a heretic, given. Ok, I am being told this constantly,"You can't go to heaven since you don't speak in tongues". Looks like heresy, but is it? ANd the other one is that they claim that they don't try to lead their children toward the Bible or Christ or anything because : "I'm going to heaven so my children are automatically going to heaven too". No offense to anyone who believes that. an atheist or someone who believes they can go to heaven without JEsus would be a heretic to me also. I cant think of any other example. but I mentioned the ones which are important to me anyway. I must add that these family members are not nice to anyone but each other. I don't see any fruit or love. I don't know what is wrong with them, & I pray for them. BUt they are trying to control me to their beliefs which isnt happening. If they were defiled by their heresy, idolatry in their heresy , that would explain their constant rudeness, criticism, & lack of fruit. I have already tolerated this for many years. Time is about up tho.

[countrymouse]

Hello again, Debbie!

Thanks for clarifying what you're asking about; that makes it easier to respond appropriately!



Originally posted by Debbiek
Ok, I am being told this constantly,"You can't go to heaven since you don't speak in tongues". Looks like heresy, but is it? ANd the other one is that they claim that they don't try to lead their children toward the Bible or Christ or anything because : "I'm going to heaven so my children are automatically going to heaven too".

I must add that these family members are not nice to anyone but each other. I don't see any fruit or love. I don't know what is wrong with them, & I pray for them. BUt they are trying to control me to their beliefs which isnt happening. If they were defiled by their heresy, idolatry in their heresy , that would explain their constant rudeness, criticism, & lack of fruit. I have already tolerated this for many years. Time is about up tho.

They are definitely wrong about tongues. Nowhere does the Bible even imply that speaking in tongues would be necessary for salvation or even a required sign of it! Paul acknowledged in 1st Corinthians that some believers didn't speak in tongues. In my opinion, teaching that tongues are required for salvation would certainly be heresy. And not teaching their children? Wow! I don't know where they got the impression that it's ok not to teach them the truth! Salvation is by grace through faith! Faith implies believing something, and Christian faith is believing the truth!

If you have warned them, you've done your duty. I think you should turn them over to God, and back away. It's not your place to judge whether or not they are saved, but you have the right to break fellowship with them over falsehood as obvious as what they're telling you to believe!

I'll be praying for you,
countrymouse

[Brandan Kraft]

Yes, I'd also have to agree with what Dianne just stated. I can't imagine making tongues necessary for salvation. That is adding a work to the finished work of Christ and is heresy.

[Debbiek]

Thank you so much for clarifying that for me, I never wanted to really say it , but it looks like a duck, quacks like one, etc. I dont recall where that verse is about your kids are automatically saved if you are"everyone in your household", but it crosses all denominations, many believe it, and in turn their kids arnt worried & do all kinds of abominations. I think the verse is meaning,"If you raise your household in the Lord, they will return to the LOrd". But that's an opinion. Thanks a lot. I feel relieved, and think that heresy & their pride in it, is the reason for their rudeness. Thanks again. Sorry to be dumping my problems on ya.

[Flip Special]

It is only a false doctrine if the Holy Word has something added to it or if something is ignored from it. For example, there is a popular preacher on the PAX network who believes that Jesus is not God, but simply God's messenger; somebody who was sent by God to carry out His mission.

It is not a false doctrine if one speaks of a debatable issue (i.e. tongues, baptism, etc...). Reason being is that scripture is not 100% clear on this issue.

That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it!:)

[Andrew]

Debbiek,
(I also promise i'm not stalking you *LOL)

Dont know if this will help you. I did a word search for heresy and heretic in my Mac Bible and it produced only 2 verses in the NT:

Ac 24:14
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Tit 3:10
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

And according to my Longman's dictionary, heresy is "a belief that is against the official or accepted beliefs of a religion". And a heretic is of cse a person who is guilty of heresy.

Now based on the definition, that just makes almost every Christian a possible heretic! *LOL. I mean, a Christian cld be a heretic if he believed in eternal security, cos some other denomination's official stand is once saved not always saved. The same can be applied to infant baptism, baptism by immersion or sprinkling, baptism as part of salvation, eschatology issues, leadership issues etc. We all have different official stands/beliefs. So I qualify as a heretic to you if my view does not line up with your church's official stand. See what i mean?

But what i want to point out is Tit 3:10. If u read the context, the type of heresy that the author is concerned about and warning against is actually deviation from the teaching of salvation by grace. ie adding back the law.

Perhaps, it is this type of heresy that we shld be concerned about. Perhaps we shld emphasise what the Bible emphasises and not emphasise what it does not emphasise. Point: Hunt for heretics that preach not grace, but law, or law plus grace. We shld not go around looking for every "wrong" interpretation of any verse and labelling them as heresy/heretics.

can anyone show me where in the Bible when heresy is mentioned, it is NOT in the context of salvation by grace or righteousness by faith? pls lemme know.

[Fledge]

So a person who claims that God was the biggest failure of all time...and that Satan conquered Jesus on the cross...and describes Christ in hell as an "emaciated, poured out little wormy spirit" could be considered heretical? I would tend to think so.

OR...someone that claims that "God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself....He made us the same class of being that He Himself is"?

What about someone that says that God told Him that "A born again man defeated Satan" in Hell. That Jesus had to go to hell to be born-again...to be a twice-born man"?

As well as someone who claims that New Age visualization techniques are "spiritual law"?

I think I would consider such a person heretical...demoting God, deifying man, vastly deviating from scripture and twisting scripture.

[Andrew]

Yes fledge, according to the definition.

but why stop there. so are those who believe in water baptism for complete salvation, those who believe in infant baptism, those who believe that the resurrection has already taken place, those who speak in tongues or those who are cessationists, those who ordain women pastors...blah blah blah etc etc etc.

it all depends on whether the view contradicts your church's/denomination's "official stand".

so just about every Christian can be a heretic.

that's why I say that perhaps Paul's concern with heresy as shown in the context of Tim 3:10 is deviation from grace, ie reintroducing the law. that shld be our focus instead?

[Fledge]

it all depends on whether the view contradicts your church's/denomination's "official stand".

That statement concerns me.
SO, it isn't what's in the Bible that is important, it isn't what GOD has to say about an issue...but it is your church's "official stand" that makes the difference??

If what you are saying is true, then all churches are right, all beliefs are right, and having a proper view of God and Jesus and the Bible and doctrine and faith and salvation...none of that matters as long as it is in line with your church???

Somehow, I don't think that's what you mean...I'm a little confused here. Could you clarify a little for me?

[countrymouse]

Cat fight, anyone? LOL:D

Andrew, many genuine believers have been called heretics by one group or another; you quoted the very verse, in fact, that tells us that the apostolic faith was called heresy by the Jews.

Question, however: If someone claims that speaking in tongues must be an additional requirement for salvation, or must be necessary in order to prove that one is saved, wouldn't we be justified in saying that such a teaching is heretical? Does the addition have to be Law-keeping, or does adding anything to the clear Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith (or taking away from it) constitute heresy? Would such a teaching not pervert the gospel itself?

[Andrew]

countrymouse & fledge,

my apologies. let me clarify. i said:
----------
And according to my Longman's dictionary, heresy is "a belief that is against the official or accepted beliefs of a religion".
----------
According to this, that just makes almost every Christian a heretic becos if your view is against my denomination's official belief (eg infant baptism is not biblical) then as far as my church is concerned, you are a heretic bcos you practise infant baptism. you see, what is official "correctly interpreted biblical doctrine" to one church may be heresy to another. and there are so many doctrines we fight about. everyone claims to have the truth.

Then I said that perhaps we should see how the Bible defines heresy, instead of how Longman define's it. And I said that it seems to me that in the Bible, what Paul considered heresy was a message other than the gospel of grace and salvation by grace. and if that's the case, then lets hunt that down, let that be the focus of heresy hunting.

so if fasting and prayer or speaking in tongues is taught as necessary for salvation, then that is heresy, as it goes against the grace/faith gospel. but if someone believes in sprinkling instead of immersion, lets not call him a heretic; if someone believes that you can speak in tongues when you receive the Holy Spirit, lets not call him a heretic, if someone believes in confessing healing scriptures to receive healing, lets not call him a heretic ------- as all these are not against salvation by grace thru faith.

my point here is the "focus" of heresy hunting shld be on deviation from salvation by faith.

that's why i asked if anyone knew of passages in the Bible where heresy was mentioned and it was NOT in the context of preaching back law/works + grace.

hope i'm clearer now.


:)

[countrymouse]

No apology necessary, Andrew! I was smiling when I wrote, "cat fight, anyone?" Thanks for the clarification, though. No, we shouldn't accuse others over every nit-picky little disagreement. That doesn't mean I don't still have a problem with many of the teachings of the WOF leaders - so much so that they cannot be my teachers.

Fledge said:
"So a person who claims that God was the biggest failure of all time...and that Satan conquered Jesus on the cross...and describes Christ in hell as an "emaciated, poured out little wormy spirit" could be considered heretical? I would tend to think so.

OR...someone that claims that "God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself....He made us the same class of being that He Himself is"?

What about someone that says that God told Him that "A born again man defeated Satan" in Hell. That Jesus had to go to hell to be born-again...to be a twice-born man"?"

Here's what I think:
Whether or not such claims fall under a strictly Biblical definition of heresy, they are, in my opinion, unbiblical and based on gross misinterpretation and speculation. Again, these people cannot be my teachers. I also cringe at the thought that their example is held up to so many people as a model of truth and a picture of the Kingdom of Heaven. We both choose as we see fit, in this matter, and I hope we can simply agree to disagree. Of course, I would rather see you find some other teachers! Actually, I would rather think that you immerse yourself in the Scriptures, and allow God to teach you from them. I can tell that you do spend time with the Bible already, which is most commendable!

Respectfully,
countrymouse

[Debbiek]

NO Andrew this isn't "heretic hunting". No one is on a witch hunt here. I understand your points, and said before, we all have different "doctrines" of end times, for example. I questioned,"Are we using the word "doctrine" correctly today?" DOes "false doctrine" even mean differing views of biblicaL scripture? Everyone knows there is evidence of tongues in Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But, when you add TO SCRIPTURE , add to the work of Jesus on the cross, by saying, "you can't go to heaven unless you speak in tongues", then a person is adding to Jesus' work. NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY YOU HAVE TO SPEAK IN TONGUES TO GO TO HEAVEN, IT ISNT EVEN DEBATEABLE. Fledge pointed out other things which arn't debateable either. It cannot be that "anything goes". So Andrew, forget the word heretic, and tell me what is your idea of "false doctrine". thanks.

[Andrew]

thanks for your conerns countrymouse,

I do have a very good teacher, he's my Pastor also. I've never heard the gospel preached with such purity as the way he preaches (that's my opinion). As for WOF preachers, they are not my teachers (officially) so to speak, but i respect their ministries and understand what they are trying to say, and agree with many things they say.

Debbiek,

Its quite easy to define false doctrine, to me it simply means any bible teaching that goes against what God actually means to say in the Bible. But as you know, the problem is "so just what did God mean to say in this verse?" And everybody claims to know the truth. so its the age-old problem of interpretation.

Debbiek,
in response to your pm which i just saw yesterday, pls understand why those ppl u mentioned say what they say about tongues being necessary for salvation.

The Pentecostals who maintain this, believe that one needs the Holy Spirit to belong to Christ and hence be saved/go to heaven. This is not wrong as all Christians I believe, agree with this. Without his spirit we are none of his.

But they go one step further to say that tongues IS the sign of having received the Holy Spirit. To them that proof is very impt, and i can appreciate their emphasis here as i find from my own expernce, that most denominations dont care much to explain how one can know for sure he has the Holy Spirit.

So in essence, they are not really adding tongues to salvation, if anything, what they are saying is that you need the Holy Spirit to be saved. which is true.

I hope this re-focus (on what they mean) will help mend things between you and them.

God bless you all

[Brandan Kraft]

What is the proof of having the Holy Spirit?

I'll tell you: A changed life! Not tongues, not a burning in the bosom, not a fuzzy feeling! But repentance and sorrow over sin is the surest sign you'll ever receive that you have been given the Holy Spirit.

[Christ_†_Alone]

Originally posted by kermie
What is the proof of having the Holy Spirit?

I'll tell you: A changed life! Not tongues, not a burning in the bosom, not a fuzzy feeling! But repentance and sorrow over sin is the surest sign you'll ever receive that you have been given the Holy Spirit.

Amen, and Amen. This, is Biblical truth.

[Fledge]

I also give a hearty agreement to Kermie's statement!

[countrymouse]

As do I!

[jhamrick]

I couldn't have said it better.

[Brandan Kraft]

Wow, so many in agreement!

Hugs for everyone!

[Debbiek]

We are in agreement because it is a profound Biblical truth, witnessed to us by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Thank you for wording it so well Kermie. And I thank you Andrew for explaining "why" some folks come to the conclusion that tongues is necessary for salvation. Paul also noticed Christians were confused about tongues, and devoted not verses, but CHAPTERS to their misconception. (1Cor.) I doubt in that day that they went so far as to claim it was necessary for salvation. But we who do not speak in tongues have gifts from the Holy Spirit such as: love, faith, hope,teaching,helps,evangelism, prophecy, etc, etc. I am still trying to not be offended by those who deny the Holy Spirit dwells within me because I don't speak in tongues. When I point out Scripture in 1 Cor. that ranks tongues as least in importance of the gifts, I am told that "It's a different tongues, don't confuse this tongues (from recieving Holy Spirit baptism) with the gift of tongues". Another thread could be started on "what is the baptism of the Holy Spirit" but I want to avoid that here. I ask Andrew or anyone who believes there are 2 differnt tongues to show me 1 verse in the Bible which says so. There isn't one. Yet much is devoted to tongues in 1Cor. NOtice the quotes that Fledge referred to which are heresy. There is no verse which was misinterpreted for any one to say those things. The same for tongues being "proof" of the Holy Spirit or tongues is necessary for salvation. Neither are misinterpretaions of any verse. They are both ASSUMPTIONS. They are false teaching, false doctrine. There is not one verse which backs up either ASSUMPTION. The fact is, that if you WANT to speak in tongues & pray to, you will. If you desire other gifts, you will have them. I do not want to become so enamored with a gift that I become a heretic & defile myself by claiming Jesus' death was not enough. This wasn't misinterpreted. Show me a verse which says there are 2 different tongues. Show me a verse that says tongues is proof of salvation. If there is no verse, it is false teaching, heresy, false doctrine.

[Flip Special]

Debbiek, do you think that I could ask for any spiritual gift and it would be given me? I'm skeptical. The body of Christ is made up of different "limbs" - each one having its own function. Combine these individual limbs and a body will be formed.

Kermie, you had a WONDERFUL statement a few posts back! Thank you - very well said! How long did it take you to compose such a work?:p Question for you, though - Do you believe that such a "fuzzy" feeling is a bi-product of having the Holy Spirit? It seems to me that once a person makes such a committment to Christ, and remains connected to the vine (John 15), those fuzzy and happy feeling will naturally come.

[Andrew]

Dear Debbie,

-----------------------
I am told that "It's a different tongues, don't confuse this tongues (from recieving Holy Spirit baptism) with the gift of tongues"... I ask Andrew or anyone who believes there are 2 different tongues to show me 1 ver se in the Bible which says so.
----------------------

I'm addressing this to you with the main purpose of helping you understand what your loved ones mean when they say that.

This argument stems from the verse "Do all speak in tongues?" Obviously the an swer being 'no'. Those 'against' tongues use this verse as their defence. The Pentecostals response is that there are 2 'types' of tongues. Actually, what they mean is 2 'workings' of tongues - one in private worship/prayer and another in a church setting, where interpretation shld be given.

It is the latter context that this verse "Do all speak in tongues" is refering to. That is, not everyone will be prompted by the Holy Spirit to deliver a message in tongues during service in a church. ie not all will be used by the Holy Spirit in this gift, just like not all will be used to give prophecy in a church setting.

If you read the entire preceding context of that verse, you will find that it is talking about the various parts that make up a church order. ie some preach, some teach, some prophesy, some give messages in tongues and some interpret tongues, etc. It cannot be that all prophesy, and there's no one to teach or preach. Likewise it cannot be that all speak in tongues such that there's no one to p rophesy or teach. That's what "Do all speak in tongues?" mean. Perhaps switching it to "Do all preach?" may help u grasp the concept. Of course, you may not be called to preach in church, but you can always preach to your family members, colleagues, friends etc.

Likewise you may not be prompted by the Holy Spirit to speak a message in tongues during service, but you can always worship and praise God in private in tongues. That's what Paul said. He said he used tongues more than anyone of them (privately) then said "BUT IN CHURCH..."

so like for me i can speak in tongues anytime i want, but it wld just be an unknown prayer or praise. And i do it almost everyday in prayer or private praise. But I have never spoken in tongues in church or in my cell group - ie to deliver a message that is accompanied by an interpretation. I've never felt any prompting from the Spirit to do so. so in a sense i dont have that gift and this gift is "as the Spirit wills". i could just speak out irregardless (ie not as the Spir it wills), but i wld just be shouting out my prayer or praise ie no message, therefore no interpretation and no edification for those present.

there are cases whereby when someone is prompted to speak in tongues by the Holy Spirit in church or to a perso n, he finds that the syllables/sounds are markedly different from what he is used to hearing when in private tongues - ie it sounds like some earthly lang as opp to babbling monosylabic sounds. And a hearer understands what he's saying.

so i hope now you have a better understanding of what it means to have "2 workings" of tongues. 1 Cor 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

when you receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, what you receive is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:11) not tongues. But becos He indwells you now in an overflowing measure, tongues flows forth, as your learned language is limited in vocabulary to express the fullness within. so instead of just saying Hallelujah, Praise the Lord, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord on and on....which is quite limited in expressing the fullness within, you just let it all out and let the Spirit express itself with his own language, and you actually feel a sweet release. this spiritual lang or tongues stays with you. that's the experience of the majority. but it doesnt mean that you can start delivering messages in tongues (accompanied by interpretation) the next time you step into your church service. so again can you see the difference?

I hope this has helped clear some misundertanding for you.

God bless.

I hope you will seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not for tongues sake, but for a deeper dimension into your private prayer and praise.

[HIS]

Andrew...Very well stated.

Kermie...I agree with your statement about the "changed" lives. But, perhaps one might add a remark about the "fruit of the Spirit" as some evidence.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Note: It's what you do with God's Spirit that matters most...

[Debbiek]

Andrew, I was aware of Scripture regarding policy on tongue speaking in church. I thank you for your explanation, but there is no verse which was misinterpreted for anyone to say, "If you don't speak in tongues you cannot go to heaven." or "There are 2 different kinds of tongues". I understand your explanation, & their explanation. In fact, to be completly honest, one family member & another person who doesn't know the family, BOTH told me this: "The reason we say this is because anyone who doesnt speak in tongues really can't have faith that God exists. You need tongues to have proof"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe these are people of little faith who NEEDED tongues. Whereas, I have no doubts, & never will, nor do I need "proof". Maybe they say this out of concern for other people losing their faith, as they would have. But they should realize they are saying the Bible is incorrect , because faith in Jesus is salvation according to scripture.

[Andrew]

Well Debbie it's sad tht they say those things. I'm sure they mean no harm - just overzealous or confused a little. Hope things continue to improve betweeen u and them!

Love the more excellent way,
:D