Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned (Titus 3:10-11).Being naturally inquisitive, I had to look further.
First, the words used. The King James calls this man "the heretick". (Apparently they didn't know how to spell back then.) (I'm only kidding about the spelling error.) The New American Standard says "factious", the King James "heretick". Why? Well, as it turns out, the Greek word is ... wait for it ... aihretikos. (Go ahead. Sound that out. Yes, that is "hereticos" -- heretic.) So why does the NAS say "factious"? Because the word references a "schismatic". The root of the word is the Greek word for "to make a choice". Thus, this person causes schisms among believers by choice. He (she) chooses to separate from orthodoxy, to set out on his (her) own, to set up his (her) own way of thinking, separate group, distinct set of doctrines apart from the standard, biblical, orthodox, historical doctrines.
Then there's "perverted". What's that all about? The Greek is ekstrephÅ. It is a combination of ek indicating origin, "out of", and strephÅ meaning to twist, to turn, to reverse. The Greek dictionary says the word means "to pervert", so I'd guess that's why the translation says "perverted" ("subverted" in the KJV). The ESV says "warped". All the same idea.
So, what's the idea here? We have someone who has demonstrated that they are choosing to cause division in the Church, to push believers away from biblical doctrine toward their own new beliefs. It's not someone who is confused or deceived. It's someone who is choosing to go this way. We know this because they have been warned ... twice. Indeed, Paul told Titus in this very epistle that this was one of the specific jobs of elders: "holding 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). So what is the proper action? Reject. Who do you reject? A heretic who chooses to divide believers from orthodoxy. When do you reject them? You reject them after determining their status of one choosing to be schismatic (as opposed to merely confused or deceived), and that is determined by two warnings. Once and they may not have heard. A second and if there is no move to change, it is now intentional. And why do you reject such a person? It is because they are twisted, turned around, headed away from good, sinning. We're all sinning, of course, but these are choosing to do so intentionally and choosing to head away from the right that they have been given ... twice. They have, by their own words and choices and actions, demonstrated that they are heretics. Paul says they are "self-condemned." (That is, "I didn't condemn them; they did that all on their own.")
Well, I think I've unpacked it just fine. I think it's all clear. So, my friend said I should pay heed. So what do I do with this?
17 comments:
Stan...
my friend said I should pay heed. So what do I do with this?
Heed it. I think you've got it right. You said...
We have someone who has demonstrated that they are choosing to cause division in the Church, to push believers away from biblical doctrine toward their own new beliefs. It's not someone who is confused or deceived. It's someone who is choosing to go this way...
Who do you reject? A heretic who chooses to divide believers from orthodoxy. When do you reject them? You reject them after determining their status of one choosing to be schismatic (as opposed to merely confused or deceived), and that is determined by two warnings.
IF there is someone who is deliberately being divisive, not merely disagreeing, but who sets out to cause strife deliberately, that person is not someone to be around. Reject them, by all means, with God's love and grace, but with some reasonable suggestion that they work on that problem.
BUT, you should certainly keep in mind that "because I told them twice that I THINK they are mistaken..." that this means they agree with you or think that you hold all of God's will in your person. Just because someone has been told two times that "I, Dan Trabue, think you are mistaken! You have now been informed of God's Will!!" doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with your/my hunch about God's will.
No, we WILL have sincere disagreements in the Church. We always have. THOSE sincere disagreements are to be accepted and worked on, reasoned together respectfully... questions should be gracefully and fully answered in a spirit of God's love, brother/sister to sister/brother and even then, we will have disagreements. Those disagreements should just be expected as the price of being fallible humans.
But, if there is ACTUALLY a divisive person whose goal is division, by all means, disassociate from those (being prepared to integrate them back in when they're finished with divisiveness). Just don't confuse "they disagree with me" with "They disagree with God." Unfortunately, that seems to happen way too often in our proud human hearts. Something to watch out for, eh?
I would certainly think there would clearly be a difference between a disagreement over whether or not drums should be used in church or wine is sinful and whether or not Jesus is God Incarnate or salvation is through Christ alone. The magnitude of the issue ("historic biblical doctrines of the Church," for instance) would be a major factor.
Part of the reason for that is it would be far less "You're disagreeing with me" and "You're disagreeing with the historic biblical doctrines of the Church."
Is it just me or does anyone else find it ironic that Dan T was the first to comment on this post? In the past he has been called a troll (internet lingo for factious) among other similar names. The things he disagrees about aren't merely disagreements, but reinterpretations. He's been shown clearly in clear Scripture his error on many occasions. He is the very first person I thought of reading this post. My guess is that who ever pointed this out was referencing.
If they are disagreeing with what God's word says - I for one could care less if they disagree with me. It is not me and my thoughts that matter, God's word matters. Knowingly disagreeing with something God's word says - and it would be what God's word says, not what I think it says or someone else thinks it says - what God's word actually says, and they have been approached and counseled twice on it and still there is a refusal to change, then they are not someone believers should associate with. Like disagreements about homosexuals wanting to get married, women who are pastors, etc. The Bible is very clear on both of those - so those who disagree are disagreeing with God and His word.
Good points. I typically ban them from my blog, for starters. I don't want non-believers to think that these wolves aren't wolves.
Neil, do you have criteria? Do you have some "essentials" over which you would decidedly ban people from your blog?
No, David, it wasn't just you. I laughed right out loud a minute ago. Ironic is right. (Remember my strife monger comment the other day? Had been keeping that nickname to myself for YEARS, but it was finally time.)
However, I must say, I DO quite often enjoy reading Dan T's comments and Stan's responses, so there is a part of me that would really miss that! Also, occasionally there have been times when I have wondered about some of the same things that Dan has brought up, so it's been good to hear those things discussed. Sometimes they're discussed almost ad nauseam, but that's usually not Stan's fault. It's generally pretty interesting and/or entertaining reading. I think Stan has probably spent more time responding to Dan's questions and comments over the years than all the rest of us combined and that's fine as long as Stan is willing. All that time is no small sacrifice.
Speaking of time.. I'm still waiting! Waiting for the "one shred of Biblical evidence" that was requested by Bryan from Dan days ago. Aren't most of us? (Silly me; I'm ever hopeful.) I want to hear it!
If Mr. Trabue can make a really good Biblical case for promoting homosexuality in ANY way, shape, or form (as long as it's "healthy" and all, of course), then maybe finally, finally we can see it as another one of God's wonderful options for some of us human folks. We just want to hear something good and right and God-honoring that His word has to say about it! Some thing! Any thing!
However, as Bryan also pointed out, the Bible DOES say that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So, if there EVER was a time when God thought the practice of homosexuality was disgusting, I would love to hear WHEN Dan T. supposes God changed His mind so that now He thinks it's just another beautiful and perfect way for some of His human creation to express their love for one another ("perfect" as long as they're still virgins and they go through some kind of marriage-like commitment ceremony so God can bless their union). IF Dan thinks it IS true that God has never changed, that men lying with men like they do with women has ALWAYS been just fine and dandy with Him is it only all of us idiot, backward humans who've taken this long to finally figure out what's right and what's wrong?
But, still waiting for the shred.
David...
The things he disagrees about aren't merely disagreements, but reinterpretations. He's been shown clearly in clear Scripture his error on many occasions. He is the very first person I thought of reading this post. My guess is that who ever pointed this out was referencing.
Ya think?
Interesting that I come and comment on the topic, agreeing with the notion but offering a reasonable, biblical warning about not taking it the wrong way.
David on the other hand comes on and talks about me - not the topic - in a negative manner.
And yet, he thinks I'm the contentious one.
Something to consider, my brother.
Also, brother David, the things we disagree upon are indeed disagreements about interpretations, factually speaking.
You interpret a passage one way, I interpret it another on a few topics. Those are interpretations.
You're welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
The deal here is the word "deliberately". As long as one maintains that one truly believes what is apart from what the text clearly says, then one isn't being "deliberately" factious. Thus, the onus is on others to prove the alternative view is truly believed or, provide something even more concrete than the clearly stated Scripture to "force" a rejection of the alternative. The latter is pointless as what more proof can be demanded than easily read text and the former requires judging the heart, which is beyond our capabilities. One can be factious without deliberate intent.
Marshall Art, I think the text in view defines "deliberately" for us. It is not "deliberately trying to cause a faction for the purpose of causing a faction", but "deliberately causing a faction despite being told (twice) that they are." That is, the "deliberate" here is deliberately denying what is biblical, what is orthodox. The truth is explained (twice) and the person, knowing that the truth is there, deliberately chooses not to abide by it. They are factious by choosing to ignore orthodoxy, not by choosing to be factious.
Dan Trabue: "the things we disagree upon are indeed disagreements about interpretations, factually speaking. You interpret a passage one way, I interpret it another on a few topics. Those are interpretations."
Dan, Dan, Dan, this, of course, moves us into the realm of the impossible. All statements about "the Bible says" are statements of interpretations. Going with your line of reasoning, then, no statements are heretical or "factious" because all statements are about interpretations. I say, "The Bible clearly teaches that we are saved by faith in the Christ who lived and died for our sin and rose again on the third day" and Pastor Shuck says, "Now, now, that's your interpretation. I see that all as myth, metaphor, one way of looking at it. Certainly not the only way. I think 'salvation' is simply by living a relatively moral life like the Jesus-myth person lived. And I'm telling others the same thing." And Dan Trabue would have nothing to say about Pastor Shuck and heresy because it's mere interpretation.
When David says, "I think the Bible teaches clearly that God chooses whom He will say apart from their faith" and Glenn says, "I think the Bible teaches clearly that God chooses whom He will say because of their faith", now we're talking a thin line that can be supported either way both biblically and historically. On the other hand when the text says repeatedly that a man lying with a man as with a woman is a sin and every single reference agrees and all of Church history concurs and it has ever been thus and one voice comes along and says "That's just your interpretation; I hold that all those references do not mean what they clearly say and that all the Church has been wrong all this time on the subject and no amount of biblical or historical proof can change that", now we're talking more than just "interpretations". You're producing "your own facts".
Dan, the specific topic (homosexuality) isn't a matter of interpretation, but of RE-interpretation. You look at the same passages that all of Church history has looked at and agreed upon, thus confirming that the Spirit has indeed kept the truth clear, and you say all of history is wrong. You add your own meanings to passages that don't say anything close to what they say. This isn't a difference between turn the other cheek when someone insults you and defending your life or your family's. Those are open for interpretation. They've been debated long and hard. Homosexuality has not. It has been agreed upon for far to long for you and yours to receive a new revelation. We are warned to be wary of new revelations. The Reformation, for example, was about refinding the old revelations. You are adding new, harmful revelations. It is not helpful in any way to allow someone to continue in their sin blindly believing it isn't. This isn't a difference between eating meat sacrificed to idols. This is a clear, repeated prohibition.
Oh, and the reason you never find something you can agree to disagree on with Stan's blog is that he isn't posting things that are open to interpretation. He only references clear, coherent Scripture. He only speaks authoritatively from the clear passages, and deliberately avoids the unclear because this is not the proper forum for that kind of discussion. That type needs true interaction
A couple of years ago I asked Dan if he could cite any passage from any the Bible, including the Apocripha, Jewish scripture, the early Church fathers, or any other early source that showed homosexual activity any any light other than negative. Suprisingly enough, I'm still waiting.
Arguing from silence must be easier.
Stan,
I don't know what Neil uses as a criteria for banning, but I can tell you mine.
If a person continues to promote false beliefs and refuses correction, then allowing that person an open forum can lead others reading the comments astray. I think it would be akin to what 2 John 10 says about not letting people come into your assembly to teach false doctrine - don't give them a forum for promoting their heresies and apostate beliefs.
And when it comes to someone like Dan, it is nothing but the same circle over and over, and it takes an inordinate amount of time to address repeatedly while making no headway because he is unteachable. I choose to be a better steward of my time than to allow his ilk to continue having a open forum on my blog.
And that is a criteria I use for banning.
David...
and the reason you never find something you can agree to disagree on with Stan's blog is that he isn't posting things that are open to interpretation...
I'd point you to Stan's own statement...
All statements about "the Bible says" are statements of interpretations.
Stan has it right, at least in that much. Factually speaking, ALL of our ideas about the Bible ARE by definition, OUR interpretations.
Now, we can say that some interpretations are more reasonable than others and have a point. If someone were to say, "'God is love,' and that means that the loving thing to do is to kill all babies so they can go to be with God, who is love..." is not a rational, morally-sound interpretation. But it IS an interpretation of the Bible.
And factually speaking, ALL things are open to interpretation to reasonable people. To say, "We've ALWAYS considered slavery to be an acceptable practice for Christians to take part in. The matter is CLOSED to interpretation..." is the sign of a small and closed mind.
I don't believe Christians of all people should have closed minds. Do you?
I think we should be able to come together to reason things out and do so in a spirit of love, respect and grace. I assume you agree with this, yes?
So, yes, these are factually matters of interpretation and all of our opinions should be open to examination or we have a shallow, untested "faith."
Happy new year, friends. May God bless you richly.
Dan Trabue: "To say, 'We've ALWAYS considered slavery to be an acceptable practice for Christians to take part in. The matter is CLOSED to interpretation...' is the sign of a small and closed mind."
To say, "All biblical references to homosexual behavior indicate that it is sin" is a statement of fact. To say, "The Church has always understood Scripture to teach that homosexual behavior is a sin" is a statement of fact. To say, "I've finally come up with the truth when every single person reading Scripture for the last 4,000 years was wrong" is not a sign of an open mind. It is a sign of a mind so arrogant that all of Scripture, all of Church history, and the Holy Spirit Himself does not touch. It is the sign of a factious mind, deliberately choosing to be divisive after having been shown and told repeatedly not merely by "Stan's hunches" but by all of Scripture, all of Church history, and all of orthodoxy that your position is wrong. You said, "'What do I do with this?' Heed it." I suppose, on your word, I shall.
Dan writes, "factually speaking, ALL things are open to interpretation to reasonable people."
If a person really believed this, he wouldn't waste his time trying to communicate this belief to anyone, because he could NEVER be confident that he could successfully convey the idea EVEN to reasonable people. Confidence in communication between reasonable people is possible ONLY if one can formulate sentences for which there is only one reasonable interpretation.
Not for the first time, I do not think Dan believes what he says he believes or -- if he does -- he does not take his stated beliefs to their logical conclusion. If it's the former, he's not arguing in good faith; if it's the latter and yet he will not recognize the flaws in his thinking, then again we cannot help but suspect that he's not being straight with us.
--
"And factually speaking, ALL things are open to interpretation to reasonable people."
He doesn't evidently believe this about his own writing, but he does believe this about the writing of apostles who were hand-picked by the man he claims is his Lord. He evidently believes that even God Himself mumbles, insofar as he believes that God doesn't (and can't?) communicate any truths about which there can be no reasonable disagreement on interpretation.
When pressed, as he was a short time ago, he cannot even say that BASIC THEISM is an essential doctrine of Christianity-in-reality, as opposed to Christianity-as-it-has-been-traditionally-understood.
There should be room for disagreement, Dan says -- as if anyone has EVER suggested lockstep conformity on every detail; strawman arguments are another indication he doesn't argue in good faith -- but he never clearly states where the church MUST have consensus.
The historicity of Jesus, the virgin birth, salvation through Christ's death, the bodily resurrection, and EVEN THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF GOD: none of these doctrines will Dan Trabue quickly and rigorously and unambiguously defend as essential to Christian faith.
--
All of that would be bad enough, but Dan's call for room to disagree isn't even consistently applied. Hold to what is, in orthodxy, a fairly conventional view that the virgin birth was necessary rather than arbitrary, and he'll ask a series of questions which your essay has already answered. He'll make it seem that you're crazy for your beliefs -- that (in his words) "you appear to be speaking more of a voodoo-like religion involving magic blood and potions and spells and rituals, rather than a religion of reason and grace and love."
Less than 48 hours later, he now writes, transparently insincerely, "I think we should be able to come together to reason things out and do so in a spirit of love, respect and grace."
He insists on open-minded, charitable tolerance on all positions EXCEPT for orthodox doctrines like the Passover and the Atonement, which he'll smear as backwards and bloody.
Is it not already clear that Dan acts to undermine God's revealed message to man? What more could one possibly need to see?
Post a Comment