Like Button

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Heretical

The word, "heretical," refers to an "opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine." We get that. The word comes from the Greek, "aihretikos." So in Titus in the King James Bible we read, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10). Now, if you look at your modern versions, that word doesn't appear there. Young's Literal Translation says "sectarian." Others use "divisive" or "stirs up division." That's because the Greek word does not mean "doctrine at variance with orthodoxy." It means "schismatic." It means "causing schisms or division."

We are keenly aware of division. Obviously there is much division in culture, politics, nations, etc., but I'm talking here about Christian division. We are supposed to be one (John 17:20-21), united (Eph 4:13), like-minded (Php 2:2). And, yet, we have denominations, divisions, even schisms. We should wish to heal those divisions, but how to go about it?

The first thing we're told to do is to simply drop that word, "heretical." There is not "heresy" in the standard definition of the word. That's because there is no "orthodoxy." Orthodoxy is "accepted doctrine" and we just don't have such a thing, so let's just drop both as valid terms. Nice in theory, but not in practice. The second thing is to stop judging. Don't tell them they're wrong; just love them. Show them grace. Embrace them regardless of what you deem to be their errors. Because, after all, you only have your own opinion on which to call it "their errors." And -- poof! -- division is gone.

There is a problem here. It's not biblical. In the Old Testament God and His prophets repeatedly address divisions, heresies, straying from God's truth. It makes them (and God) very unpopular. But they did it. In the New Testament much of Paul's writings were aimed at addressing error, from immorality (1 Corinthians) to legalism (Galatians) to Gnosticism (Colossians) and more. And so did Peter. And John. And James. And Jude. And ... well, you get the idea. Some of the New Testament was intended to explain more fully the principles of the faith, but most of that is accomplished by addressing the errors -- straying from orthodoxy. Jesus did it often, from "You have heard that it was said ... but I say unto you ..." to the cleansing of the Temple (Matt 21:12-13) to the seven woes to the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:1-26) and so on. Jesus certainly taught truth, but He also spent a great deal of time correcting error. The Bible urges us to correct, not ignore error.

We've got it turned around these days. We seem to think that the correct response to error is acceptance. "If you don't accept it, you're being divisive. Stop it." Not true. The division is in the error, not the one who notices or attempts to correct it. If Jesus is the truth (John 14:6) and God's Word is truth (John 17:17), then isn't it important to help those who deviate from it to return? The Bible says that Scripture is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). Wouldn't it be good to use Scripture to teach, to reprove error, to offer correction, and to train in righteousness? Is it not wise, caring, and loving to follow the examples of Christ, the prophets, and the Apostles and seek to address rather than ignore division? At least, that's how it would appear to me.

1 comment:

Bob said...

2x + c = x^2 since 2*(x^n+1/n+1) = x^2
Since i don't really understand Calculus, i think i should just declare that i don't need it.
and since i don't need it, it should not be discussed, because that would cause division.
therefore understanding calculus is not necessary, therefor mute.
Because i don't really understand Doctrine; i don't need it. and any discussing of doctrine cause strife in me, therefore because doctrine causes division issues, it should therefore not be discussed. so therefore doctrine is mute.
wow that's a lot of therefores...