A COLLECTION OF BIBLICALLY-BASED MATERIALS CONCERNING HERESIES AND HERETICS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITUS 3:10,11
[Including teachings on the subject from many Christian sources {citations
included}.]
(Updated May 15, 2008)
[Note: Several ****tions of the materials herein were typed in by hand. If
a
typographical error is discovered, please alert me so I may correct said
error at the earliest possible moment.]
The Word of God must be the final authority for what we Christians
believe.
What does the Bible say about those who intentionally promote heresies?
"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that,
have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and
sinful; he is self-condemned." (Titus 3:10,11 -- NIV)
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself." (Titus 3:10,11 -- KJV)
"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that
such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus
3:10,11 -- NKJV)
"A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that
such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned." (Titus
3:10,11 -- ASV)
"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 --
NASU)
"[As for] a man who is factious [a heretical sectarian and cause of
divisions], after admoni****ng him a first and second time, reject [him
from
your fellow****p and have nothing more to do with him]" (Titus 3:10,11 --
AMP)
"Al hombre que cause divisiones, después de una y otra amonestación
deséchalo, sabiendo que el tal se ha pervertido, y peca y está condenado
****
su propio juicio." (Titus 3:10,11 -- RVR)
"A sectarian man, after a first and second admonition be rejecting, having
known that he hath been subverted who [is] such, and doth sin, being
self-condemned. (Titus 3:10,11 -- YLT)
"Give at least two warnings to the person who causes divisions, and then
have nothing more to do with him. You know that such a person is corrupt,
and his sins prove that he is wrong." (Titus 3:10,11 -- TEV)
---
[A man that is an heretic] The word "heretic" is now commonly applied to
one
who holds some fundamental error of doctrine, "a person who holds and
teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made
the standard of orthodoxy." Webster. The Greek word here used hairetikos
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The corresponding noun hairesis
occurs in the following places: Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5; 26:5; 28:22, where
it
is rendered "sect;" and Acts 25:14; 1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1,
where it is rendered "heresy," and "heresies;" see the notes at Acts
24:14.
The true notion of the word is that of one who is a promoter of a sect or
party. The man who makes divisions in a church, instead of aiming to
promote
unity, is the one who is intended. Such a man may form sects and parties
on
some points of doctrine on which be differs from others, or on some
custom,
religious rite, or special practice; he may make some unim****tant matter a
ground of distinction from his brethren, and may refuse to have fellow****p
with them, and endeavor to get up a new organization. Such a man,
according
to the Scripture usage, is a heretic, and not merely one who holds a
different doctrine from that which is regarded as orthodoxy. The spirit of
the doctrine here is the same as in Rom 16:17, and the same class of
persons
is referred to. "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to
the doctrine which ye have received; and avoid them." See the notes at
that
passage. The word here used is defined by Robinson (Lexicon), "one who
creates dissensions, introduces errors, a factious person." It is not
found
in classic Greek, but often in ecclesiastical writers; see Suicer's
Thesaurus.
[After the first and second admonition] Compare Matt 18:15-17. That is, do
not do it hastily and rashly. Give him an op****tunity to explain himself,
and to repent and abandon his course. No man is to be cut off without
giving
him a proper op****tunity to vindicate his conduct, and to repent if he has
done wrong. If after the first and second admonition a man who is
undoubtedly doing wrong, will not repent, then he is to be cut off. The
apostle does not say in what way this admonition is to be given, or
whether
it should be public or private. The language which he uses would justify
either, and the method which is to be adopted is doubtless to be
determined
by cir***stances. The thing which is to be reached is, that his fault is
to
be fairly set before his mind.
[Reject] paraitou. This word is rendered "excuse" in Luke 14:18-19;
"refuse," Acts 25:11; 1 Tim 4:7; 5:11; Heb 12:25; "avoid," 2 Tim 2:23, and
"entreated," Heb 12:19. Its prevailing meaning, as used in connections
like
the one before us, is to reject in relation to an office; that is, to
decline appointing one to an office. It probably had a primary reference
to
that here, and meant that a man who was given to making dissensions, or
who
was a factious person, should not be admitted to an office in the church.
The general direction would also include this, - that he should not be
admitted to the church. He is neither to be owned as a member, nor
admitted
to office; compare Matt 18:17. "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and
a
publican." In regard to this passage, then, we may observe:
(1) That the utmost limit which this allows is mere exclusion. It does not
allow us to follow the offender with injury.
(2) It does not authorize us to oppose one on account of his mere private
opinions. The essential idea is that of a factious, division-making man; a
man who aims to form sects and parties,whether on account of opinions, or
from any other cause.
(3) It does not make it right to deliver such a man over to the "secular
arm," or to harm him in body, soul, property, or reputation. It gives no
power to torture him on the rack, or with thumb-screws, or to bind him to
the stake. It authorizes us not to recognize him as a Christian brother,
or
to admit him to an office in the church-but beyond this it gives us no
right
to go. He has a right to his own opinion still, as far as we are
concerned,
and we are not to molest him in the enjoyment of that right.
(4) It demands that, when a man is undoubtedly a heretic in the sense here
explained, there should be the utmost kindness towards him, in order if
possible to reclaim him. We should not begin by attacking and denouncing
his
opinions; or by formally arraigning him; or by blazoning his name as a
heretic; but he is to be dealt with in all Christian kindness and
brotherly
fidelity. He is to be admonished more than once by those who have the
right
to admonish him; and then, and then only, if he does not repent, he is to
be
simply avoided. That is to be an end of the matter so far as we are
concerned. The power of the church there ceases. It has no power to
deliver
him over to anyone else for persecution or punishment, or in any way to
meddle with him. He may live where he pleases; pursue his own plans;
entertain his own opinions or company, provided he does not interfere with
us; and though we have a right to examine the opinions which he may
entertain, yet our work with him is done. If these plain principles had
been
observed, what scenes of bloody and cruel persecution in the church would
have been avoided!
"Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
of
himself."
[Knowing that he that is such is subverted] Literally, "is turned out;"
or,
"is changed," i.e., for the worse. He has gone from the right way, and
therefore he should be rejected.
[And sinneth, being condemned of himself] His own conscience condemns him.
He will approve the sentence, for he knows that he is wrong; and his
self-condemnation will be punishment sufficient. His own course, in
attempting a division or schism in the church, shows him that it is right
that he should be separated from the communion of Christians. He that
attempts to rend the church, without a good reason, should himself be
separated from it.
(from Barnes' Notes)
---
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick [141 hairetikos] after thefirst and
second admonition reject;
Strong's: 141 hairetikos {hahee-ret-ee-kos'}
from the same as 140; TDNT - 1:184,27; adj
AV - that is a heretic 1; 1
1) fitted or able to take or choose a thing
2) schismatic, factious, A FOLLOWER OF A FALSE DOCTRINE
3) HERETIC
---
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
The ministers of the word must at once cast off heretics, that is, those
who
stubbornly and seditiously disquiet the Church, and will pay no attention
to
ecclesiastical admonitions.
(from Geneva Notes)
---
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
Heretic.
Heresy, originally a division resulting from self-will; the individual
doing
and teaching what he chose independently of the church. More aggravated
than
schism (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20): divisions on church matters not
necessarily
fundamental (Titus 1:14; 5:9 ). In course of time it came to mean 'heresy'
in the modern sense, 'the open espousal of fundamental error.' The
heretics
of Crete were in doctrine followers of their own self- willed questions
(Titus 3:9), and immoral in practice.
Admonition - by word [nouthesia: but paideia, by chastisements].
Reject, [paraitou] - literally, ask off from,: 'shun.' Not formal
excommunication, but have nothing more to do with him, either in
admonition
or conversation.
"Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
of
himself."
Knowing-by the ill success of your admonitions.
Is subverted [exestraptai] - is perverted; literally, turned inside out;
i.e., completely changed for the worse (Deut 32:20) [dowr tahpukot].
Condemned of himself - continuing the same after frequent admonition, he
is
self-condemned. When 'he sinneth' he doeth what his own knowledge
virtually
condemns.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
---
The treatment of heretics (Titus 3:9-15)
Here is the fifth and last thing in the matter of the epistle: what Titus
should avoid in teaching; how he should deal with a heretic; with some
other
directions.
Observe,
I. That the apostle's meaning might be more clear and full, and especially
fitted to the time and state of things in Crete, and the many judaizers
among them, he tells Titus what, in teaching, he should shun, v. 9. There
are needful questions to be discussed and cleared, such as make for
improvement in useful knowledge; but idle and foolish enquiries, tending
neither to God's glory nor the edification of men, must be shunned. Some
may
have a show of wisdom, but are vain, as many among the Jewish doctors, as
well as of later schoolmen, who abound with questions of no moment or use
to
faith or practice; avoid these.- - And genealogies (of the gods, say some,
that the heathen poets made such noise about; or rather those that the
Jews
were so curious in): some lawful and useful enquiries might be made into
these things, to see the fulfilling of the scriptures in some cases, and
especially in the descent of Christ the Messiah; but all that served to
pomp
only, and to feed vanity, in boasting of a long pedigree, and much more
such
as the Jewish teachers were ready to busy themselves in and trouble their
hearers with, even since Christ had come, and that distinction of families
and tribes had been taken away, as if they would build again that policy
which now is abolished, these Titus must withstand as foolish and vain.- -
And contentious, and strivings about the law. There were those who were
for
the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, and would have them continued in the
church, though by the gospel and the coming of Christ they were superseded
and done away.
Titus must give no countenance to these, but avoid and oppose them; for
they
are unprofitable and vain: this is to be referred to all those foolish
questions and genealogies, as well as those strivings about the law. They
are so far from instructing and building up in godliness, that they are
hindrances of it rather: the Christian religion, and good works, which are
to be maintained, will hereby be weakened and prejudiced, the peace of the
church disturbed, and the progress of the gospel hindered. Observe,
Ministers must not only teach things good and useful, but shun and oppose
the contrary, what would corrupt the faith, and hinder godliness and good
works; nor should people have itching ears, but love and embrace sound
doctrine, which tends most to the use of edifying.
II. But because, after all, there will be heresies and heretics in the
church, the apostle next directs Titus what to do in such a case, and how
to
deal with such, v. 10. He who forsakes the truth as it is in Christ Jesus,
who broaches false doctrines and propagates them to the corrupting of the
faith in weighty and momentous points, and breaks the peace of the church
about them, after due means used to reclaim him, must be rejected.
"Admonish
him once and again, that, if possible, he may be brought back, and thou
mayest gain thy brother; but, if this will not reduce him, that others be
not hurt, cast him out of the communion, and warn all Christians to avoid
him." - Knowing that he that is such is subverted (turned off from the
foundation) and sinneth grievously, being self-condemned. Those who will
not
be reclaimed by admonitions, but are obstinate in their sins and errors,
are
subverted and self-condemned; they inflict that punishment upon themselves
which the governors of the church should inflict upon them: they throw
themselves out of the church, and throw off its communion, and so are
self-condemned.
Observe,
1. How great an evil real heresy is, not lightly therefore to be charged
upon any, though greatly to be taken heed of by all. Such a one is
subverted
or perverted-a metaphor from a building so ruined as to render it
difficult
if not impossible to repair and raise it up again. Real heretics have
seldom
been recovered to the true faith: not so much defect of judgment, as
perverseness of the will, being in the case, through pride, or ambition,
or
self-willedness, or covetousness, or such like corruption, which therefore
must be taken heed of: "Be humble, love the truth and practise it, and
damning heresy will be escaped."
2. Pains and patience must be used about those that err most grievously.
They are not easily and soon to be given up and cast off, but competent
time
and means must be tried for their recovery.
3. The church's means even with heretics are persuasive and rational. They
must be admonished, instructed, and warned; so much nouthesia im****ts.
4. Upon continued obstinacy and irreclaimableness, the church has power,
and
is obliged, to preserve its own purity, by severing such a corrupt member
which discipline may by God's blessing become effectual to reform the
offender, or if not it will leave him the more inexcusable in his
condemnation.
III. The apostle subjoins some further directions, v. 12, 13. Here are two
personal things enjoined:-
1. That Titus should hold himself ready to come to Paul at Nicopolis (a
city
of Thrace, as is reckoned, on the borders of Macedonia), as soon as
Artemas
or Tychicus should be sent to Crete, to supply his place, and take care of
the churches there when he should leave them. The apostle would not have
them in their young and weak state be without one or other of chief
sufficiency, to guide and help them. Titus, it seems, was not their
ordinary
fixed bishop or pastor, but an evangelist, otherwise Paul would not have
called him so much from his charge. Of Artemas we read little, but
Tychicus
is mentioned on many occasions with respect. Paul calls him a beloved
brother, and faithful minister, and fellow-servant in the Lord: one fit
therefore for the service intimated. When Paul says to Titus, Be diligent
to
come to me to Nicopolis, for I have determined there to winter, it is
plain
that the epistle was not written from Nicopolis, as the postcript would
have
it, for then he would have said, I determined here, not there, to winter.
2. The other personal charge to Titus is that he would bring two of his
friends on their journey diligently, and see them furnished, so that
nothing
should be wanting to them. This was to be done, not as a piece of common
civility only, but of Christian piety, out of respect both to them and the
work they were sent about, which probably was to preach the gospel, or to
be
in some way serviceable to the churches. Zenas is styled the lawyer,
whether
in reference to the Roman or the Mosaic law, as having some time been his
profession, is doubtful. Apollos was an eminent and faithful minister.
Accompanying such persons part of their way, and accommodating them for
their work and journeys, was a pious and needful service; and to further
this, and lay in for it, what the apostle had before exhorted Titus to
teach
(v. 8) he repeats here: Let ours also learn to maintain good works for
necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful, v. 14. Let Christians, those
who have believed in God, learn to maintain good works, especially such as
these, sup****ting ministers in their work of preaching and spreading the
gospel, hereby becoming fellow-helpers to the truth, 3 John 5-8. That they
be not unfruitful. Christianity is not a fruitless profession; the
professors of it must be filled with the fruits of righteousness, which
are
by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. It is not enough that
they
be harmless, but they must be profitable, doing good, as well as eschewing
evil.- - "Let ours set up and maintain some honest labour and employment,
to
provide for themselves and their families, that they be not unprofitable
burdens on the earth;" so some understand it. Let them not think that
Christianity gives them a writ of ease; no, it lays an obligation upon
them
to seek some honest work and calling, and therein to abide with God. This
is
of good re****t, will credit religion and be good to mankind; they will not
be unprofitable members of the body, not burdensome and chargeable to
others, but enabled to be helpful to those in want. To maintain good works
for necessary uses; not living like drones on the labours of others, but
themselves fruitful to the common benefit.
IV. The apostle concludes with salutations and benedictions, v. 5. Though
perhaps not personally known (some of them at least), yet all by Paul
testify their love and good wishes to Titus, owning him thereby in his
work,
and stimulating him to go on therein. Great comfort and encouragement it
is
to have the heart and prayers of other Christians with and for us. Greet
those that love us in the faith, or for the faith, who are our loving
fellow-christians. Holiness, or the image of God in any, is the great
endearing thing that gives strength to all other bonds, and is itself the
best. Grace be with you all. Amen. This is the closing benediction, not to
Titus alone, but to all the faithful with him, which shows that though the
epistle bears the single name of Titus in the inscription, yet it was for
the use of the churches there, and they were in the eye, and upon the
heart,
of the apostle, in the writing of it. "Grace be with you all, the love and
favour of God, with the fruits and effects thereof, according to need,
spiritual ones especially, and the increase and feeling of them more and
more in your souls." This is the apostle's wish and prayer, showing his
affection to them, his desire of their good, and a means of obtaining for
them, and bringing down upon them, the thing requested. Observe, Grace is
the chief thing to be wished and begged for, with respect to ourselves or
others; it is, summarily, all good. Amen shuts up the prayer, expressing
desire and hope, that so it may, and so it shall be.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition)
---
Titus 3:10
Ver. 10. A man that is an heretic,.... An heretic, according to the
notation
of the word, is either one that makes choice of an opinion upon his own
judgment, contrary to the generally received sense of the churches of
Christ, and prefers it to theirs, and obstinately persists in it;
separates
from them, forms a party, and sets himself at the head of them, whom he
has
drawn into the same way of thinking with himself: or he is one that
removes
and takes away a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, which affects
particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity, and personality of
Father, Son, and Spirit, and especially the doctrines relating to the
person, office, and grace of Christ; one that brings in, or receives
damnable doctrines; speaks or professes perverse things, and draws away
disciples after him; or is among such disciples: for though schism and
heresy do differ, and every schismatic may not be an heretic, yet every
heretic is a schismatic; he makes a rent in the doctrine of Christ, and
makes parties and divisions in his church; and such are not always to be
contended and disputed with, but to be avoided and rejected:
after the first and second admonition reject; have nothing to do with him;
have no society with him; admit him not to private conversation; and eject
him from church communion, after he has been publicly admonished twice by
the order of the church; for this is not to be understood of private
admonition, by a particular person or persons; as in the case of private
offences, Mt 18:15 but of public admonition, in the name of the church. An
admonition with the Jews did not continue less than seven days {a}; some
say
{b} thirty; that is, there were so many days before it was out, or between
one and another.
{a} T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 16. 1. {b} Bere**** Rabba, sect. 33. fol. 28.
3.
Titus 3:11
Ver. 11. Knowing that he that is such is subverted,.... Or overturned and
demolished; he is like an edifice, that is not only decaying, and falling,
but is entirely everted, and pulled down; so that there is no hopes of a
restoration or recovery; he is in a desperate condition, having opposed
the
person, or office, or sacrifice of Christ; having either trodden the Son
of
God underfoot, or counted his blood common, or done despite unto the
spirit
of grace; in either of which cases there is no more sacrifice for sin:
and sinneth; not practically, but doctrinally, and wilfully after he has
received the knowledge of the truth; by denying the truth he received, in
which he continues, notwithstanding the evidence of the word of God is
against him; and; notwithstanding the arguments taken from it by the
ministers of the Gospel, to convince him; and notwithstanding the
admonitions of the church to recover him out of the snare of the devil:
being condemned of himself; not that an heretic is one that is convinced
in
his own conscience that he is in an error, and that that is a truth which
he
opposes; and yet he obstinately persists in the one, and continues to set
himself against the other; for then, none but an hypocrite, that conceals
his true sentiment, can be an heretic; nor can any man be known to be one
unless he accuses himself; since no man can know the heart of another; and
it would be impracticable in a church to deal with heretics, or reject and
excommunicate them: but either the meaning is, that he is such an one, who
by his own practice has condemned himself; for whereas he has separated
himself not only from the faith of the church, but from the church itself;
by so doing he practically condemns himself, or judges himself unworthy of
the communion of the church, and so justifies the church in their
rejection
and exclusion of him: or rather, an heretic is one who having professed
Christianity, and received the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and
practice, and still professes to abide by the same, and that all doctrine
is
to be tried by them, and to be approved or condemned as that agrees or
disagrees with them, stands condemned by those Scriptures, which he
himself
allows to be the rule of decision and determination; and so may be said to
be self-condemned.
(John Gill)
---
Treatment of heretics: -- Paul having exhorted Titus both to teach the
truth
according to godliness, as also to resist all such foolish and vain
doctrine
as might do hurt in the Church of God. Titus might object: This indeed is
my
duty wherein I extend to exercise myself with diligence; but when I have
laboured and done all I can, many there are who will not yield to the
truth,
nor submit themselves to this ordinance of God; how am I to carry myself
towards such? Answer: The apostle, careful to prevent all such things as
he
foresaw might be hurtful to the Church, giveth direction in these two
verses
how to proceed in this business also. The former, giving direction and
laying down the duty; and the latter, enforcing the same by moment of
reason. In the former are three things to be considered:
1. The persons against whom Titus is to deal -- here called heretics.
2. The direction how he is to behave himself towards them -- reject them.
3. The orderly manner of proceeding, after once or twice admonition.
The latter verse containeth the reason of this severity, because such
persons are incurable and incorrigible; which is proved by two arguments.
1. Such a one is subverted, that is, turned or cast off the foundation.
2. He sinneth against his own conscience, being damned of his own self,
that
is, he wittingly and willingly spurneth against that truth of which his
conscience is by the former admonition convinced.
(T. Taylor, D. D.)
---
Wilful heresy
I. WHAT PATIENCE THE LORD USETH IN HIS JUST PROCEEDINGS, EVEN AGAINST THE
WORST MEN, WHOM HE WILT. NOT HAVE CONDEMNED NOR CAST OUT OF THE CHURCH
UPON
SUSPICIONS, OR SURMISES; nor nor presently after an open sin is committed;
but there must be a time between wherein the Church must rightly inform
herself, that she may know the nature and degree of the sin before she
turn
her to any censure or sentence. Yea, and further, the sin being apparent,
she must not reject any, till all good means of reclaiming have been in
vain
used. Which may teach us, that to hasten excommunications ipso facto; or
(as
it is often) before the party can come to the knowledge or suspicion of
any
such proceeding, is to swerve from the rules of the Word, and those
weighty
reasons also upon which they are grounded. As namely:
1. Some offenders are curable; and what man in his wits will cut off his
arm
or leg so soon as it beginneth to ache and pain him, and not rather use
means of surgery and cure? is any member in the body so despised?
2. Ourselves must not be so uncharitable as presently, to despair of any
man's conversion. God may in time raise the most desperate stoner unto
repentance.
3. The means used are not lost; for if it attain no other end, yet shall
it
make them more inexcusable, the censure more just, and the Church's
proceeding more equal and moderate
Wilful heresy
4. Add here unto the Lord's example, who never striketh before He have
sufficiently warned; He never precipitateth either sentence or execution,
but first cometh down to see (Gen 18:21), and hearkeneth and heareth (Mal
3:16), and accordingly passeth sentence.
II. NOTE THAT WHEN A SINNER IS KNOWN TO SIN OF OBSTINACY, THE BEST WAY IS
TO
AVOID HIM AND CAST HIM OUT.
1. For labour is but lost on such a one.
2. He doth but tread holy things under his feet; of which holy things the
Church is the keeper, and must be faithful.
3. He sins not only of judgment and reason, but of affection; and this is
the reason why very few heretics are converted, when many unregenerate men
and outrageously wicked in other kinds are, who sin not of affection and
wilfulness, but of corrupt judgment only.
4. The Lord's example (Hos 4:17).
III. Note hence, also, WHAT USE THE LORD MAKETH OF A WICKED CONSCIENCE,
EVEN
IN DESPERATE SINNERS. It shall be the accuser, witness, and judge to
pronounce the sentence of death against his own soul; and so shall make
way
unto the Lord's most righteous judgment. Use.
1. It letteth us see what an intolerable torment a wicked conscience is.
Use.
2. This further teaches us not to neglect the checks of conscience, nor
our
own hearts reproving us of our ways; as those men who are resolved to hold
on their lewd courses, let the word and spirit, yea, their own spirits,
suggest what they will or can against it. For the time cometh when thou
canst not set the voice of thy conscience so light, and then that
conscience
which hath checked thee shall judge thee, and that heart which hath
reproved
thee shall torment thee, and thou shalt never be able to turn off the
charge
of it, but shalt by it be accused and convicted to have been a wilful
chooser of thine own destruction. Use.
3. This consideration also teacheth us to look that in everything we keep
good consciences before God and all men, the use of which will be
manifold.
(1) To keep us from errors and heresies, and contain us in the profession
of
the true faith; for let good conscience be put away, there must needs
follow
a ****pwreck of faith; as is to be seen in all heretics. Hence are we
counselled to make pure conscience as the coffer to keep faith in (1 Tim
3:9).
(2) In doing any action lawful in itself, a good con science only maketh
it
good to the doer; for to do even the will of God against my conscience is
sin to me, be the same in itself never so materially good.
(3) In suffering or enduring anything for well doing (as not the pain, but
the cause maketh a martyr so), not the cause so much as the conscience of
the sufferer worketh out his boldness and peace in the midst of the
combat,
and giveth him security, in his conflict; whereas a bad conscience will
betray the best cause.
(4) In enjoying any condition of this present life, a good conscience is a
sweet companion; even a dry morsel with peace of heart is better than a
house full of sacrifices with strife and war within. In outward
afflictions
there is inward rejoicing, for let the heart be pacified in God, it can
rejoice in tribulation. The disciples can go away rejoicing from the
council
that they were counted worthy to be beaten and suffer rebuke for Christ
(Acts 5:41). The martyrs can kiss the stake, embrace the fire, and sing in
the midst of the flames.
(5) Yea, it doth not only through the whole life minister joy and comfort
even in the remembrance of death, as in 2 Tim 4:7,8, but it followeth a
man
after death, when all things else forsake him; and as a most faithful
friend
it goeth with him before God's judgment seat, and pleadeth for him at the
bar of Jesus Christ; yea, testifieth with him, and cleareth, and quite
acquitteth him from the judgment of the great day. All which being so,
what
pains and labour can be thought too much in the getting and keeping of
such
a jewel, which bringeth in so rich a recompense for so little labour, and
how worthily doth he forfeit all these sweet fruits of it, who will be at
no
costs nor pains for it.
(T. Taylor, D. D.)
---
Heresy not to be trifled with: -- I am asked sometimes to read an
heretical
book. Well, if I believed my reading it would help its refutation, and
might
be an assistance to others in keeping them out of error, I might do it as
a
hard matter of duty, but I shall not do it unless I see some good will
come
from it. I am not going to drag my spirit through a ditch for the sake of
having it washed afterwards, for it is not my own. It may be that good
medicine would restore me if I poisoned myself with putrid meat, but I am
not going to try it: I dare not experiment on a mind which no longer
belongs
to me. There is a mother and a child, and the child has a book to play
with,
and a blacklead pencil. It is making drawings and marks upon the book, and
the mother takes no notice. It lays down one book and snatches another
from
the table, and at once the mother rises from her seat, and hurriedly takes
the book away, saying: "No, my dear, you must not mark that, for it is not
ours." So with my mind, intellect, and spirit; if it belonged to me I
might
or might not play tomfool with it, and go to hear Socinians,
Universalists,
and suchlike preach; but as it is not my own, I will preserve it from such
fooleries, and the pure word shall not be mingled with the errors of men.
(C. H. Spurgeon)
---
Contagion of false doctrine: -- Sin is like the bale of goods which came
from the East to this city in the olden time, which brought the pest in
it.
Probably it was but a small bale, but yet it contained in it the deaths of
hundreds of the inhabitants of London. In those days one piece of rag
carried the infection into a whole town. So, if you permit one sin or
false
doctrine in a church knowingly and wittingly, none can tell the extent to
which that evil may ultimately go. The Church, therefore, is to be purged
of
practical and doctrinal evil as diligently as possible That sour and
corrupting thing which God abhors must be purged out, and it is to be the
business of the Christian minister, and of all his fellow helpers, to keep
the church free from it.
(C. H. Spurgeon)
---
Wilful heresy: -- Heresy, in the New Testament, is most commonly used in
an
indifferent sense, and but seldom in a bad one. It generally signifies no
more than a sect or party in religion. Thus we read of the sect, or
heresy,
of the Sadducees; of the sect, or heresy, of the Pharisees; St. Paul is
styled a ring leader of the sect, or heresy, of the Nazarenes; and he says
of himself that, after the strictest sect (where the same Greek word is
used) of the Jewish religion, he lived a Pharisee. In this last passage
particularly nothing can be more plain than that the word has an innocent
meaning, since the apostle rather commends than charges himself with
anything criminal for having been a Pharisee before his conversion to the
Christian faith. And we find it applied in the same manner in Acts 28:22.
I
shall mention but one text more, and that is, "For there must also be
heresies among you," etc. (1 Cor 11:19). The evident design of which is,
that considering the various tempers of men, their different views,
passions, prejudices, their selfishness, ambition, vanity, and the like,
it
was natural to expect that they would divide into parties about religion,
as
well as about politics, and the civil affairs of life; and that the
providence of God wisely permitted this for the trial of their integrity,
and to distinguish the indolent, careless, and insincere from the real
friends of truth, persons of an honest, inquisitive, and ingenuous temper.
Now, according to this account, the general notion of a heretic is no more
than this, viz., one that sets up to be the head, or chooses to join
himself
to a particular religious sect. I say who makes this the matter of his
choice because it is implied in the original signification of the word;
and,
besides, nothing can be supposed to have any concern with religion but
what
is a voluntary action. A heretic, therefore, in a bad sense, must be one
who
knowingly espouses a false doctrine, is insincere in his profession, and
asserts and defends what he is convinced is contrary to Christianity, and,
consequently, one who maintains and sup****ts the interest of a faction, to
serve some base designs. According to St. Paul's account in the text, a
heretic is not only subverted or turned aside from the true faith, he not
only entertains wrong sentiments of Christianity, but sinneth, i.e., doth
this wilfully, and with an ill attention. He is one that makes religion a
cloak for his immoralities, and espouses and propagates what he knows to
be
false, to promote the ends of his ambition, covetousness, or sensual
pleasure; who, indeed, thinks it his interest to retain the name of a
Christian, and in that cir***stance only differs from a thorough and
wilful
apostate from Christianity, but which incurs the greater guilt may perhaps
be hard to determine; for as the one rejects the Christian religion
altogether, the other out of choice corrupts it, and opposes its true
doctrines, even while he pretends to believe and reverence its authority.
Such as these, I say, persons of such vile and dishonest principles, and
of
so flagitious a character, are the heretics condemned by St. Paul; and
therefore to fix it as a term of reproach on any in whom there does not
appear hatred of the truth, a sensual mind, and a profligate conscience,
must be unChristian and scandalous. And if we examine other passages of
the
New Testament we shall find that they all concur in giving us the same
idea
of heresy. It is represented as a work of the flesh, because it has its
foundation in the corrupt inclinations of human nature. It is reckoned
among
the most heinous and execrable vices -- such as adultery, idolatry,
hatred,
variance, seditions, murders. And heretics are constantly described as men
of no probity or honour, strangers to all the principles of virtue, and
embracing such opinions only as were calculated for the gratification of
irregular appetites, and advancing selfish and worldly views (1 Tim 1:19;
2
Peter 2:1.)
1. It appears from what has been said that no mere error of the judgment
can
be heresy. For heresy is a high degree of wickedness; and necessarily
supposes irregularity of the affections and a depraved and vicious choice;
whereas erroneous conceptions and apprehensions of things are no crime at
all, but natural to mankind in the present weak and imperfect state of the
faculties.
2. We may infer that no honest man can possibly be a heretic. He may,
indeed, have errors (and who is there among us that has not?) -- nay, he
may
err in points of im****tance too, but his mistakes cannot be dangerous
while
he takes care to maintain a good conscience.
3. If heresy be an error of the will, and such only can be guilty of it
who
are condemned of themselves, how can we certainly know, in most cases at
least, whether a man be a heretic or not? Let each of us put this question
to himself impartially, and if we cannot answer it to our satisfaction,
let
us, however, learn thus much from our ignorance, to be modest in the
censures we pass upon others. If it be said that such wicked deceivers are
generally known by their fruits, and that their vicious lives will show us
by what views they are acted, and the vile design of their imposture, I
answer that, even upon this supposition, I should think it better that
they
be rejected for their immorality, which is notorious and palpable, than
for
heresy, of which we cannot so certainly judge.
Wilful heresy
4. Though it be a point of great nicety to judge of heresy in particular
instances, the persons who come nearest the character of the old heretics
are violent party men, who confine Christianity to their own faction, and
excommunicate all that take the liberty to differ from them; the rigid
imposers of human schemes of doctrine and modes of wor****p, as essential
branches of religion, and laws binding conscience, these, I say, are most
like the heretics condemned in Scripture, notwithstanding their insolence
and presumption.
(James Foster)
---
Treatment of heretics: -- In what way are the directions here given to
Titus
to be used for our own guidance at the present time? They do not apply to
persons who have always been, or who have ended in placing themselves
outside the Christian Church. They refer to persons who contend that their
self-chosen views are part and parcel of the gospel, and who claim to hold
and teach such views as members or even ministers of the Church. Secondly,
they refer to grave and fundamental errors with regard to first
principles;
not to eccentric views respecting matters of detail. And in determining
this
second point much caution will be needed; especially when inferences are
drawn from a man's teaching. We should be on our guard with regard to
assertions that a particular teacher virtually denies the Divinity of
Christ, or the Trinity, or the personality of God. But when both these
points are quite clear, that the person contradicts some of the primary
truths of the gospel, and that he claims to do so as a Christian, what is
a
minister to do to such a member of his flock? He is to make one or two
effects to reclaim him, and then to have as little to do with him as
possible. In all such cases there are three sets of persons to be
considered: the heretic himself, those who have to deal with him, and the
Church at large. What conduct on the part of those who have to deal with
him
will be least prejudicial to themselves and to the Church, and most
beneficial to the man himself? The supreme law of charity must be the
guiding principle. But that is no true charity which shows tenderness to
one
person in such a way as to do grievous harm to others, or to do more harm
than good to the person who receives it. Love of what is good is not only
consistent with hatred of what is evil; it cannot exist without such
hatred.
What we have to consider, therefore, is this. Will friendliness confirm
him
in his error? Would he be more impressed by severity? Is intercourse with
him likely to lead to our being led astray? Will it increase his influence
and his op****tunities of doing harm? Is severity likely to excite sympathy
in other people, first for him, and then for his teaching? It is
impossible
to lay down a hard and fast rule that would cover all cases; and while we
remember the stern instructions which St. Paul gives to Titus, and St.
John
to the "elect lady," let us not forget the way in which Jesus Christ
treated
publicans and sinners.
(A. Plummer, D. D.)
---
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject: --
We have been asked to join in certain projects in which there are some
heretics. I am not interested in being joined with anyone who has views
that
are in opposition to the Word of God. God tells us here to be separate
from
heretics. Just let them alone; reject them.
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself: -- The heretic is one who has turned aside from the truth.
(J. Vernon McGee, Th.M., Th.D.)
---
The treatment of heresy: --
I. HERESY IS NOT AN UNSOUND OPINION, BUT AN UNSOUND LIFE. A man may hold
an
erroneous opinion, and hold it sincerely; but the word used here denotes
one
who seeks to promote discord in the Church (See Rom 16:17).
II. HERESY IS TO BE DEALT WITH FIRMLY, BUT GENTLY.
1. Firmly -- by admonition.
2. Gently -- by repeated admonitions.
III. HARDENED HERETICS ARE TO BE REJECTED.
1. But this only applies to exclusion from Church fellow****p.
2. It is no warrant for persecution.
3. Excluded heretics are to be deemed objects of pity.
(F. Wagstaff)
---
Titus 3:10,11
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Heretic. Heresy, originally a division resulting from self-will; the
individual doing and teaching what he chose independently of the church.
More aggravated than schism (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20): divisions on church
matters not necessarily fundamental (Titus 1:14; 5:9 ). In course of time
it
came to mean 'heresy' in the modern sense, 'the open espousal of
fundamental
error.' The heretics of Crete were in doctrine followers of their own
self-
willed questions (Titus 3:9), and immoral in practice.
Admonition - by word [nouthesia: but paideia, by chastisements].
Reject, [paraitou] - literally, ask off from,: 'shun.' Not formal
excommunication, but have nothing more to do with him, either in
admonition
or conversation.
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself.
Knowing-by the ill success of your admonitions.
Is subverted [exestraptai] - is perverted; literally, turned inside out;
i.e., completely changed for the worse (Deut 32:20) [dowr tahpukot].
Condemned of himself - continuing the same after frequent admonition, he
is
self-condemned. When 'he sinneth' he doeth what his own knowledge
virtually
condemns.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
---
"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time." -- The
Greek
for "divisive person" became a technical term in the early church for a
type
of "heretic" who promoted dissention by propogating extreme views of
legitimate Christian truths. "After that, have nothing to do with him. You
may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."
--
Stubborn refusal to listen to correction reveals inner perversion.
(from The NIV Study Bible)
---
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself." -- A heretic was originally one who caused divisions or
factions,
but later the word emphasized such a person's peculiar or unorthodox
beliefs. Therefore, heretics and schismatics are to be rejected. As in all
his epistles, Paul urges fidelity to the apostle's doctrine. The word
"heresy" literally means "choosing one's own ideas," but now refers to
that
which is untrue. Even the New Testament church had false or heretical
teachers who taught erroneous doctrine. Some epistles were specifically
written to combate them (e.g., Galatians, 2 Thessalonians). Paul warned
the
Romans against identifying with those who promoted divisive, heretical
teachings (Rom. 16:17). He advised Titus to reject heretics if they did
not
respond after two warnings (v. 10). John warned that a heretic should not
be
admitted into a Christian's home (2 John 10). ILLUSTRATION: Not everyone
who
makes an incorrect doctrinal statement is a heretic. When Apollos was
further instructed concerning the gospel, he grew into a mighty Christian
leader (Acts 18:24-28). By contrast, Hymeneus and Philetus were heretics
when they rejected God's truth and hurt the faith in some believers (2
Timothy 2:16-18). APPLICATION: Christians should as much as possible
dissociate themselves from every heretic so as to be unhindered in their
Christian lives. (First Reference, Acts 15:1; Primary Reference, Titus
3:10;
cf. John 21:18.)
(from The King James Study Bible)
---
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject"
--
"Heretick" (Gr hairetikos) means "to choose, prefer, or take for oneself."
It has the idea of choosing to believe what one wants, in spite of what
God
says. The Word of God must be the final authority for what we believe.
Those
who accept so-called "further revelations" which are contrary to the Word
of
God are heretics and should be rejected. "Knowing that he that is such is
subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" -- This one is
"subverted" (Gr ektrepo), meaning twisted. It is a medical term used of
such
as an ankle that had been sprained. Being condemned of himself (Gr
autokatakritos) means self-condemned. By his own contentions, the
subverted
one condemns himself and show whose camp he is in.
(from The KJV Parallel Bible Commentary)
---
RSV/TEV COMPARISON
"As for a man who is factious, after admoni****ng him once or twice, have
nothing more to do with him,"
After mentioning the teachings and actions of the heretical teachers, Paul
now turns his attention to the teachers themselves, although in a subtle
manner, referring to them by the expression a man who is factious. The
word
for factious appears only here in the whole New Testament; it is the word
from which the modern word "heretic" is derived. The term is derived from
the word that means "division" and therefore is used to describe the act
of
being divisive or causing divisions and splits within a certain group. KJV
has used the word "heretic" in this verse, which seems to be less than
accurate, since "heresy" as it is now understood puts focus on wrong or
false doctrines that are professed by people, whereas the focus here is on
the negative behavior of these people that for whatever reason gives rise
to
divisions and splits. It has been appropriately remarked by one
commentator
that, in the present-day church, people who are so intent on getting rid
of
heretics (in the sense that they hold different theological views) are in
fact the ones who are causing the greatest divisions within the body of
Christ! (Another way of putting it is that it is the people who want to
get
rid of heretics in the modern sense who in fact are the heretics in the
biblical sense).
Admoni****ng comes from a verb that refers to advising someone regarding
the
serious consequences of some action; hence "to warn," "to admonish," "to
caution." Once or twice may mean "at least two times" (so TEV "Give at
least
two warnings") or "no more than twice" (TNT; so also NRSV "after a first
and
second admonition," REB "he should be allowed a second warning"). In
languages that must give the content of the verb "admonish" or "warn," one
may translate "You must warn at least two times those who cause divisions
in
the church to stop doing that" or "You must say to those who cause people
in
the church to divide into groups, 'Stop doing this!' If you have to say
this
on two occasions and they won't stop, don't have . . . ."
For the expression have nothing more to do with him, see 1 Tim 4:7, where
a
similar expression occurs; also 2 Tim 2:23. The expression may simply mean
not to have any more dealings with the person so as to make them feel that
they are no longer part of the Christian community, or less likely, to
formally exclude the person from the church (hence excommunication). See
further comments on 1 Tim 1:20.
"knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is
self-condemned."
Treating the factious person in this harsh way is justified by that
person's
bad qualities, of which Titus is very much aware. Knowing refers to Titus'
knowledge about such a person. An equivalent expression is "I am sure you
know" or "You must certainly know."
Perverted translates the perfect passive form of a verb that occurs only
here in the New Testament and is used to describe the act of departing
from
what is accepted as correct behavior. Some take this perversion to be in
the
area of thinking rather than of action (for example, TNT "perverted mind,"
REB "distorted mind," CEV "their minds are twisted"). This means that the
focus here is not on doing what is wrong but on not believing what is
right.
This means that perverted here has the same meaning as "reject the truth"
in
Titus 1:14. There is, however, no unanimity regarding this, and therefore
it
may be best to understand the term in a more general way, to include both
perversion of mind and the resulting corrupt behavior.
For sinful see "persist in sin" in 1 Tim 5:20. This is actually a third
person singular verb, present tense, in the Greek, indicating the habitual
and continuous nature of the act of sinning.
The word for self-condemned occurs only here in the whole New Testament
and
refers to being condemned by, or as a result of, one's own actions. This
means that, in the case of the false teachers, there is no need for a
formal
trial, since their own actions are more than enough to prove that they are
guilty of sinning against God and therefore deserve to be treated as
outsiders.
How do these three items relate to each other? The Greek can be rendered
literally as "having been perverted, such a one also sins by being
self-condemned." This seems to indicate that the initial act is
perversion;
this results in habitual sinfulness, and it is these sinful acts that
prove
that a person is guilty before God and therefore deserves to receive the
punishment of being rejected by the church.
An alternative translation model for this verse is:"I am sure that you
know
that such a person has a twisted mind. His sins then show how guilty he is
before God."
(from the UBS New Testament Handbook Series)
---
What The Bible Says About A Godly Attitude Toward Heresy:
1. Try them . . .
1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether
they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
2. Mark them . . .
Romans 16:17, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause
divisions
and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid
them."
3. Rebuke them . . .
Titus 1:13, "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that
they
may be sound in the faith; . . ."
4. Have no fellow****p . . .
Ephesians 5:11, "And have no fellow****p with the unfruitful works of
darkness, but rather reprove them."
5. Withdraw thyself . . .
2 Thessalonians 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
Lord
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh
disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." (See
also
1 Timothy 6:3-5).
6. Turn away from them . . .
2 Timothy 3:5 " . . .Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof: from such turn away."
7. Receive them not . . .
2 John 1:10,11, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." To our day false
teachings are fostered by misplaced hospitality.
8. Have no company with him . . .
2 Thessalonians 3:14, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle,
note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."
9. Reject them . . .
Titus 3:10, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition
reject; . . ."
10. Be ye separate . . .
2 Corinthians 6:17, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye
separate,
saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, .
.
.."
(G. Archer Weniger, D.D.)
---
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject"
The Greek word here translated "heretick" means "factious" -- one who
willingly chooses for himself and sets up a faction (see 1 Cor. 11:19;
Gal.
5:20). Our responsibility is to reprimand such a person twice, then avoid
him if he does not change.
"Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
of
himself."
"subverted" I.e., perverted, turned aside, and hence, self-condemned
(from The Ryrie Study Bible)
---
"foolish disputes." Paul again warns against becoming embroiled in
senseless
discussions with the many false teachers on Crete (see 1:10, 14-16),
especially the Judaizers who contended that a Christian must be obedient
to
"the (Mosaic) law," a view that assaulted the doctrine of justification by
grace through faith alone and, contrary to holy living, which was good and
profitable, was "unprofitable and useless." Proclaiming the truth, not
arguing error, is the biblical way to evangelize.
"Reject." Anyone in the church who is unsubmissive, self-willed, and
divisive should be expelled. Two warnings are to be given, following the
basic pattern for church discipline set forth by Christ (cf. Rom. 16:17,
18:2; 2 Thess. 3:14,15).
"self-condemned." By his own ungodly behavior, a factious believer brings
judgment on himself.
(from The MacArthur Study Bible)
---
"Heretic." (3:10, RV "factious man"). After a reasonable effort to set a
false teacher right, avoid him.
(from Halley's Bible Handbook)
---
Paul tells Titus, "reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being
self-condemned."
Paul is saying to beware of men like the Judaizers and the false prophets.
If they continue upsetting homes and families, then go to them in love
twice
(Matt. 18) and warn them, but if they do it again, that means they are
sinning and they are already self-condemned, so reject them."
(Ron R. Ritchie)
---
So a divisive person was to be warned once and then a second time. Paul
continued, "After that, have nothing to do with him" (3:10). Such a person
is "warped" and "sinful," and has condemned himself to his fate (3:11).
Expect Satan to attack your class at the point of unity. He knows that a
group of Christians who are fighting each other are not fighting him. Look
for someone to seek division in your class or church for the sake of his
or
her own promotion. And be courageous in dealing with this cancer before it
metastasizes throughout the body of Christ. Nearly every denominational
split in Christian history started small.
(Dr. Jim Denison)
---
If a church member goes about trying to get a following, and then gets
angry
and leaves the church, let him go. If he comes back (maybe the other
churches don't want him either), and if he shows a repentant attitude,
receive him back. If he repeats this behavior (and they usually do),
receive
him back the second time. But if he does it a third time, do not receive
him
back into the fellow****p of the church (Titus 3:10). Why not? "Such a man
is
warped in character, keeps on sinning, and has condemned himself" (Titus
3:11, literal translation). If more churches would follow this principle,
we
would have fewer "church tramps" who cause problems in various churches.
(Warren Wiersbe)
---
An heretic (after a first and second admonition) reject - Avoid, leave to
himself. This is the only place, in the whole scripture, where this word
heretic occurs; and here it evidently means, a man that obstinately
persists
in contending about foolish questions, and thereby occasions strife and
animosities, schisms and parties in the church. This, and this alone, is
an
heretic in the scripture sense; and his punishment likewise is here fixed.
Shun, avoid him, leave him to himself. As for the Popish sense, A man that
errs in fundamentals, although it crept, with many other things, early
into
the church, yet it has no shadow of foundation either in the Old or New
Testament.
Such an one is perverted - In his heart, at least. And sinneth, being
self-condemned - Being convinced in his own conscience that he acts wrong.
(Wesley's Notes)
---
The man who majors on these minors is a divisive heretic. He usually has
one
note on his violin and plays it to death. Soon he gathers around himself a
coterie of people with a negative outlook, and the rest he drives away. He
will divide an assembly rather than abandon his doctrinal hobbyhorse. No
church should put up with such nonsense. If after one or two warnings, he
refuses to desist, he should be expelled from the fellow****p of the local
church and the Christians should refrain from having social contact with
him. Hopefully, this ostracism will bring him to repentance and to a more
balanced handling of the word of God.
(from Believer's Bible Commentary)
---
Reject a divisive man: Titus was to cut off the church's relation****p with
any person who would not submit to correction after two warnings (2 Thess.
3:14, 15). The Greek word for warped here suggests that Satan is
perverting
this person. Sinning indicates that the man will not change his ways and
thus continues to rebel against God.
(from Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary)
---
One of the tasks of apologetics - the branch of theology concerned with
the
intelligent presentation and defense of the historical Christian faith -
is
to counter heresy (the opposite of orthodoxy) with sound doctrine.
Heresy is:
[d]octrine which is erroneous in such a way that Christians must divide
themselves as a church from all who teach or accept it; those adhering to
heresy are assumed to be lost, although Christians are unable to make
definitive judgments on this matter. The opposite of orthodoxy. Adj.:
"heretical."
- Source: A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy, Christian Research
Journal, Summer 1990, by Robert M. Bowman.
The entry addresses heresy from a Christian perspective. However, the term
is used in other religions as well.
Easton's Bible Dictionary says 'heresy' is derived from.
..a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3)
the
sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5,
14
; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character.
Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning
attached
to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This
word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19).
In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed
"questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify
self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).
- Source: Heresy, Easton Bible Dictionary
A person who teaches heresy is called a heretic. A church, movement or
organization that claims to be Christian, but which nevertheless teaches
heresy, is a cult of Christianity. Christians who have not learned
discernment easily fall prey to such groups.
Heresy vs. the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith
Charges of heresy are most serious where they involve deviation from - or
denial of - the central, essential doctrines of Christianity:
"Central doctrines" of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make
the
Christian faith Christian and not something else.
The meaning of the expression "Christian faith" is not like a wax nose,
which can be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
The Christian faith is a definite system of beliefs with definite content
(Jude 3)
Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central
doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily
resurrection,
the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through
faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that
to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
Scripture teaches that the beliefs mentioned above are of central
im****tance
(e.g., Matt. 28:19; John 8:24; 1 Cor. 15; Eph. 2:8-10).
Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one
cannot be saved and deny these.
Central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about
which
Christians may legitimately disagree.
Peripheral (i.e. non-essential) doctrines include such issues as the
timing
of the tribulation, the method of baptism, or the structure of church
government.
For example, one can be wrong about the identity of "the spirits in
prison"
(1 Peter 3:19) or about the timing of the rapture and still go to heaven,
but one cannot deny salvation by grace or the deity of Christ (John 8:24)
and be saved.
Christian denominations - whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or
Protestant - agree on the essential core. The relatively minor
disagreements
between genuinely Christian denominations, then, cannot be used to argue
that there is no objectively recognized core of fundamental doctrine which
constitutes the Christian faith.
- Source: Alan Gomes, Unmasking the Cults
Unpopular Subject
In today's "that's true for you, but not for me" society identifying
heresy - a process that necessarily involves discernment and judgment - is
unpopular, and yet necessary:
Within late twentieth-century North American Christianity, heresy has
become
an unpopular word. Can't we all just get along and live together in peace?
Unfortunately the answer is no. Peace cannot be purchased at the expense
of
truth. In 1 Timothy, Paul writes that we are to pay close attention to
ourselves and the doctrine and to continue in it, for in doing so we shall
save both ourselves and those who hear us (1 Tim. 4:16). There is an
inviolable core to the Christian faith. Harsh as it sounds, to violate
that
core is to place ourselves outside the Christian tradition. This is the
essence of heresy, and heresy remains a valid category for today. This is
not to endorse a McCarthyism that finds heretics under every rock. Nor is
it
to end the action of God's grace in anyone's life. But it is to own up to
the fact that truth is never supplemental but always fundamental to
Christian community.
- Source: William A. Dembski, The Task of Apologetics, in Unapologetic
Apologetics, edited by William A. Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2001. Page 43.
(from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/)
---
Defining Heresy and Orthodoxy
So far I have argued that we ought to distinguish between truth and error
in
doctrine. Now I wish to address the question of orthodoxy and heresy more
directly. What is orthodox doctrine, what is heretical doctrine, and
what's
the difference?
Inadequate Approaches
It is tempting to say that whatever doctrine is biblical is orthodox and
whatever doctrine is not biblical is not orthodox. But this is too
simplistic. For example, assuming that only one of the several views
(there
are at least four) on the Rapture is biblical, it does not follow that the
views that are not biblical are therefore heretical. There are some
doctrines which, while not in agreement with the Bible, are not so wide of
the mark that they must be regarded as heretical.
Another approach that has been taken is to measure doctrines by the
doctrinal confessions of some particular denomination. This is fine so
long
as what is being determined is not orthodoxy but confessional fidelity.
That
is, if someone wishes to be an ordained minister of a particular
denomination, that denomination is within its rights to ask that such a
person agree with its doctrines. If someone does not (e.g., if someone
disagrees with the denomination's position on speaking in tongues or
predestination), then that person should not expect to be ordained in such
a
denomination. Given the present diversity of denominations, this should be
expected.
On the other hand, it is lamentable that the church has allowed itself to
be
divided over nonessential issues. Thus, adherence to a denomination's
particular distinctives should not necessarily be made the test of
Christian
orthodoxy. Of course, some of the doctrinal stands taken by a denomination
may be basic to orthodoxy (e.g., a confession of the deity of Jesus
Christ).
In such cases, the denomination's confession and orthodoxy coincide.
What, then, should be the standard of orthodoxy? And how should it be
determined? Perhaps most troublesome: Who should determine the standard?
Certainly I do not claim to have any particular authority to determine by
what standard orthodoxy shall be judged. I claim no special anointing
beyond
that which all Christians have (1 John 2:20, 27). I make no claims to
apostolic or prophetic authority. I am not even an ordained minister. Who,
then, am I to judge who is and is not orthodox? Who am I to call anyone a
heretic?
My answer to these questions is twofold. First, I am a Christian, and as
such have a responsibility to avoid heresy. I can hardly do so if I do not
have some idea as to what heresy is. Second, I am a teacher, called by God
to the ministry of teaching my fellow Christians sound doctrine. That
gives
me no special authority or mantle of divine sanction, and I would not want
anyone to assume that whatever I say is true. But it does mean that God
has
given me a special responsibility, and if I am faithful He will use me to
guide other believers into a more complete and accurate understanding of
His
truth. If I am truly faithful, those who are open to God's truth will know
that what I say is true - not because I say it, but simply because I have
led them to see what has always been in God's Word, the Bible.
Toward Definitions
What, then, is orthodoxy, and what is heresy? First of all, I wish to
point
out that the term "orthodoxy" is not in the Bible. That does not mean that
the concept itself is unbiblical, but that we cannot read off its meaning
from biblical texts.
The words "heresy" and "heretic" are in the Bible, and are used in
somewhat
varying senses. The Jews called Christianity a "heresy" (Acts 24:14),
probably meaning they considered it a sect under God's condemnation. But
Paul referred to the various factions among the Corinthian Christians as
"heresies," that is, "divisions" (1 Cor. 11:19). Here he seems to regard
some of these divisions as distingui****ng true believers from false
believers, but other divisions as simply unfortunate expressions of sinful
disunity among Christians, without suggesting that all who belonged to
these
different factions were lost. Elsewhere, though, Paul referred to
"heresies"
or divisions as works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20) and said that a "heretic" -
a
man causing divisions in the church - is perverted and self-condemned
(Tit.
3:10-11). Finally, Peter speaks of destructive "heresies" in the sense of
doctrines which deny Christ the Lord (2 Pet. 2:1).
From this survey it is evident that a "heresy" in biblical terminology
could
be merely an unfortunate division among Christians, but in a stricter
sense
is a divisive teaching or practice destructive of genuine faith and
deserving of condemnation. The looser sense corresponds roughly to our
modern denominations, while the stricter sense applies most clearly to
groups which reject basic Christian doctrines and set themselves apart
from
the historic church in its many forms. But a "heresy" in the latter sense
can have its start, at least, within the church. Whenever heresies in this
strict sense arise, Christians are called to separate themselves from
those
who persist in holding them.
We may therefore define "heresy" in the strict sense as "a teaching or
practice which compels true Christians to divide themselves from those who
hold it."
Note the difference here: a "faction" or heresy in the looser sense is an
unfortunate division separating Christians from one another, and
Christians
are called to do whatever they can to overcome these divisions (1 Cor.
1:10). But a heresy in the stricter sense is a division separating
Christians from non-Christians (or, at best, from Christians who are
persisting in grave error), and Christians are called to draw the line and
refuse to have spiritual fellow****p with those who cross over it. This is
not to say that Christians should not show genuine love, compassion, and
personal respect for heretics; too often in church history "heretic" has
been a hate-word.
How, then, should we define "orthodox"? We might define it as whatever
teachings and practices are sufficiently faithful to Christian principles
that Christians should accept as fellow-Christians those who adhere to
them.
To put it simply, whatever religious teachings and practices are not
heretical are orthodox, and vice versa.
Notice that we have not said that all members of churches which teach
heresy
are lost. This is no more true than saying that all who are members of
churches which teach orthodoxy are saved. In saying that people are
heretics, or that they are following heresy, we are not pronouncing
judgment
on their eternal souls. We are saying that if they follow those heresies
consistently, they will certainly be lost. Conversely, in saying that
someone is orthodox we are not saying that they are necessarily true
Christians with the assurance of eternal life. We are saying that if they
follow orthodox doctrine as the basis of their life (and thus trust in
Christ alone for right standing before God) they will be saved.
Aberrational Christianity
It might seem that doctrinal discernment should be a fairly cut-and-dried
procedure of determining whether a doctrine is orthodox or heretical.
After
all, we have defined orthodoxy and heresy in such a way that they cover
all
possibilities. Either a doctrine is such that those who hold it should be
accepted as Christians (in which case it is orthodox), or it is not (in
which case it is heretical). This might seem to imply a black-or-white
approach in which all doctrine is either completely orthodox or completely
heretical.
Although doctrinal discernment would be a lot neater and simpler if this
were the case, unfortunately things are more complicated - in at least two
distinct ways. First, a single doctrine is never held in isolation from
other doctrines, but rather is always part of a system or network of
beliefs
held by a person or group. And sometimes that system of beliefs includes
many doctrines which are orthodox as well as some which are heretical. For
example, a religious group might hold that the Bible is the Word of God,
that there is only one God, that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from
the dead, and yet deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Such a group's belief
system is heretical, even though it contains many true beliefs. Moreover,
a
group's heretical beliefs generally lead them to misunderstand or misapply
even those true beliefs they do confess, since the beliefs tend to be
interdependent and thus mutually affect one another. Thus, one of the
tasks
of doctrinal discernment is to sort out which beliefs in a heretical
system
are actually heretical, which are not, and how the nonheretical beliefs
are
misapplied because of the heretical system in which they are held.
The second sort of complication to be noticed is that people often hold
conflicting beliefs. Because people are often inconsistent, in some cases
they may hold to orthodox beliefs but also hold to beliefs that undermine
or
contradict their orthodox beliefs. The difficulty presented in such cases
is
to sort out whether the belief system is basically orthodox or not.
For example, many professing Christian groups today confess belief in one
God, but also speak of human beings (usually Christians in particular) as
being in some sense "gods." This verbal contradiction may or may not
betray
a real contradiction in the substance of their beliefs. Making matters
even
more difficult is the fact that these different groups mean vastly
different
things by calling believers "gods." In some cases it is evident that they
really do not believe in one God at all. In other cases it is clear that
they are using the word "gods" of believers in a figurative sense such
that
their confession of one God is not contradicted at all. In still other
cases
a real tension exists, and it is difficult to avoid concluding that the
group in question holds conflicting views.
In order to accommodate this phenomenon, it is helpful to speak of
religious
doctrines which undermine or are in tension with a group's orthodox
beliefs
as aberrational. Holding such aberrational views is a serious problem, and
those who do so must be considered as being in serious sin and should be
treated accordingly. Specifically, those advocating such errors should not
be allowed to teach or minister in the church, and those refusing to keep
such aberrant views to themselves should be excommunicated.
The charge that a person or group's beliefs are aberrational is a serious
one that cannot be made easily. It is arguable that at one level any
incorrect belief is at tension with or undermines orthodox beliefs. By
aberrational, however, I am referring only to false beliefs which do
serious
damage to the integrity of an orthodox confession of faith.
The sum of the matter is that doctrinal discernment is a difficult task --
one which requires sensitivity, a sense of pro****tion and balance, and a
deep understanding of what is essential and what is not. New heresies and
aberrations are constantly arising, as well as new insights into biblical
truth, and discernment is needed to tell the difference. Thus, the task of
doctrinal discernment is an ongoing necessity in the Christian church.
Having shown that doctrinal discernment is necessary, I have yet to say
very
much at all about how it is to be done.
How do we discern truth from error, sound doctrine from unsound doctrine,
orthodoxy from heresy? How do we discern when a doctrine is fully
heretical
and when it is only aberrational?
In Part One of this two-part article I presented a case for doctrinal
discernment as a necessary ongoing task of the church. In this concluding
part I will suggest some guidelines for carrying out this task in a way
that
is faithful to Scripture.
Principles For Identifying Heresy
Discerning orthodoxy from heresy should be done on the basis of sound
principles, each of which in turn must be based on the teaching of God's
Word. I begin, then, by discussing four principles which the church ought
to
utilize as tools to identify and expose heresy. Although they are subject
to
misunderstanding and abuse, all four - properly interpreted - are valid
and
should be utilized together in doctrinal discernment.
The protestant principle.
Here I am not referring to an exclusively Protestant position, but rather
to
a principle that will be especially agreeable to Protestants (particularly
evangelicals). According to this principle, "the Bible alone is the
written
Word of God, and as such is the infallible, definitive standard in matters
of controversy in the church."
This principle follows from the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, who
taught
that while human tradition and religious leaders are fallible, Scripture
is
the Word of God and never errs (Matt. 5:17-20; 15:3-9; 22:29; John 10:35).
Since to be a Christian means, minimally, to be a follower of Jesus
Christ,
no person or group can claim to be truly Christian that does not at least
acknowledge this special authority of the Bible.
I said that this teaching is not held exclusively by Protestants, though
it
is especially agreeable to them. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy (the other two main branches of Christianity) teach that the
church's traditions are infallible and authoritative, a teaching with
which
Protestants cannot agree. Thus, these branches of Christianity do not
adhere
fully to the protestant principle as defined here. On the other hand,
Catholicism and Orthodoxy do teach that the Bible is the norma normans -
that is, the norm by which all other norms are to be judged. Thus, at
least
in some sense, the view of all major Christian traditions is that
Scripture
has the final word. But evangelical Protestants have upheld this principle
more consistently than Christians in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions.
On the other hand, liberalism - which began in mainline Protestantism and
has virtually engulfed it, and which has now made significant inroads in
Roman Catholicism - completely denies the protestant principle. Liberalism
presumes to judge the teachings of the Bible according to the canon of
human
reason. Accordingly, it should be rejected as apostate by true believers
of
all major Christian traditions.
The protestant principle has often been summarized by the Protestant
Reformation motto sola scriptura ("only Scripture"). Taken in its true
sense, this means that only Scripture is an unerring verbal expression of
the mind of God for the church prior to Christ's return. But this should
not
be interpreted to mean that truth can be found only in Scripture or that
all
traditions are based on falsehood. Nor should it be interpreted to forbid
using words not found in the Bible to express biblical doctrine. For
example, the idea that the Bible is a "canon," or rule of faith, is
biblical - even though the word "canon" is not found in the Bible. The
idea
that God is "self-existent," meaning that His existence depends on nothing
other than Himself, is biblical - even though the word "self-existent" is
not in the Bible. This is an im****tant qualification to the protestant
principle, violated by many heretical sects.
The evangelical principle.
In Europe, "evangelical" is virtually synonymous with "Lutheran," and the
principle I enunciate here will be especially agreeable to that tradition,
though certainly transcending it. According to this principle, "whatever
is
contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ is to be rejected as heresy"
This principle is based directly on such passages as Galatians 1:6-9 and 1
Corinthians 15:1-4. Here, "the gospel" refers not to the Bible in its
entirety, but to its central message of reconciliation of human beings to
God through the redemptive work of Christ.
This principle implies that not every misinterpretation of or departure
from
the Bible is equally damaging to authentic Christian faith.
Misunderstanding
the relation****p between the Millennium and the Second Coming, for
example,
is not as serious an error as misunderstanding the relation****p between
faith and works. Denying that Jonah escaped alive after being inside a
large
fish for three days is not as bad an error as denying that Jesus rose from
the grave after being dead for three days. Whether the errors are
clear-cut
or debatable from our perspective, it remains true that some errors are
worse than others.
On the other hand, this principle can be misapplied by treating the gospel
as a "canon within the canon" such that some parts of the Bible become
more
authoritative than others. While we may draw more directly on the Gospel
of
John or the Epistle to the Romans in our presentation of the gospel, our
understanding of the gospel should be shaped by the entire Bible. Some
extreme or aberrant groups have lost sight of this and have argued that
only
one part of the Bible - say, the Book of Acts - presents the gospel of
salvation. Besides being contrary to the facts (e.g., Paul rehearses the
basics of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8), such an argument undermines
the unity of Scripture.
Moreover, even seemingly less im****tant errors can be symptomatic of
outright heretical beliefs. For example, while some variant views on the
Millennium are tolerable among Christians, other views should be regarded
as
heretical, such as the view that the Millennium will be a period in which
unbelievers will be raised and given a second chance to save themselves by
doing good works. Clearly this view is heretical because of its bearing on
the doctrine of salvation. The belief that Jonah was not swallowed by a
fish
and then set free three days later might be symptomatic of a prejudice
against all miracles. On the other hand, some Christians who freely
confess
that God could have done such a miracle hold that the Book of Jonah is a
parable and was simply not intended as history. The latter view may be
wrong, but it is not anti-Christian in the way the former view clearly is.
Finally, it should be noted that in mainline denominations heavily
influenced by liberalism, the "gospel" has typically been reinterpreted
and
watered down to the point of no longer being the biblical gospel at all.
The
evangelical principle must always be tied to the protestant principle and
not pitted against it, as is the case in liberal Protestantism.
The orthodox principle.
I call this principle the "orthodox" principle because it will be
especially
agreeable to Christians in the Orthodox (Eastern) tradition. According to
this principle, "the creeds of the undivided church should be regarded as
reliable expressions of the essential truths on which they speak."
This principle follows from the biblical teaching that the Christian faith
was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3) and that the gates of
Hades would not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18). These texts (see
also Matt. 28:20; John 14:16; Eph. 4:11-16) make it inconceivable that the
whole church could establish as normative what is in fact aberrant or
heretical.
Thus, the creeds formulated by the early church before it split into
Eastern
Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism, and accepted by all three
branches of Christianity, should be regarded as reliable standards by
which
heresies may be exposed. Such creeds as the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds
-
which speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God (the Trinity),
and of Jesus Christ as uniquely God and man (the Incarnation) - expressed
the faith of all Christians when they were written, and have unified all
Christians against heresy for centuries. They are therefore deserving of
respect and should be honored as tools for identifying and exposing
heresy.
Note that I am not saying that Christians cannot choose to disagree with
some of the precise wording of these creeds. After all, they are not
infallible, inspired do***ents. Nor am I saying that those churches which
choose not to use the creeds, or which have little or no regard for creeds
as such, are heretical. Rather, I am simply saying that a doctrine or
belief
should be regarded as heretical if it departs from the essential,
substantial teachings of these creeds. I am therefore adopting a more
flexible form of this principle than is actually held by Eastern Orthodox
Christians themselves. I am also pleading with my anticreedal brothers and
sisters in Christ to rethink their rejection of these fine expressions of
orthodoxy.
The catholic principle.
By "catholic" I do not mean specifically Roman Catholic, but simply
"universal" (which is what the Greek word katholikos means). The notion of
"catholicity" has been much abused, but it has also been ignored; both are
unfortunate. The catholic principle is that "any doctrine that contradicts
what the church as a whole (in all times and places) has regarded as
essential to the faith should be regarded as heretical."
This principle also follows from the biblical teaching mentioned above
that
God will keep the whole church from heresy.
It should be noted that this principle is a generalization, not an
absolutely definitive test. I say this because by the "whole" church I do
not mean every last individual in the church, as if the dissent of one or
a
few professing Christians could negate a doctrine's status as "catholic."
The principle rather seeks to uphold what the vast majority of those who
have participated in the church's wor****p, in all its various branches and
denominations, and who have upheld the faith as defined by the orthodox
principle, have regarded as essential or basic to their faith.
Moreover, the catholic principle - properly understood - presupposes the
protestant principle. That is, when we speak of "the church" in all times
and places, we are speaking of that community of faith which regards the
Bible as the supreme norm of its faith. We are thus excluding from the
outset those segments of Christendom that have abandoned faith in the
Bible
as the Word of God. It has only been in the last two centuries that large
segments of Christendom within both Protestantism and Catholicism have
denied absolute biblical authority. And in the vast majority of such
cases,
the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement have been
rejected as well. These segments of Christendom must be regarded as
apostate, having fallen away from the faith.
These considerations are helpful in making more precise the notion of
appealing to the position of the "historic Christian church" as a litmus
test of orthodoxy. What we ought to mean by this expression is the
Bible-believing community of faith as it has existed continuously
throughout
the centuries. Those segments of Christendom which have introduced new
doctrinal revelations, or which have rejected biblical authority, are by
this definition not part of the historic Christian church.
Finally, note that not everything that has been believed by most
Christians
falls under the catholic principle, but only those things that the church
has held to be essential. For the first fifteen centuries of church
history,
virtually all Christians held that the earth was at the physical center of
the universe. But by no means does this make that erroneous belief part of
the "catholic" or universal Christian faith. Here the "evangelical
principle" is a valuable corrective to a possible misapplication of the
catholic principle.
(Robert M. Bowman, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d01.html;
http://www.biblicalapologetics.net/)
---
10 Avoid an heretical man This is properly added; because there will be no
end of quarrels and dispute, if we wish to conquer obstinate men by
argument; for they will never want words, and they will derive fresh
courage
from impudence, so that they will never grow weary of fighting. Thus,
after
having given orders to Titus as to the form of doctrine which he should
lay
down, he now forbids him to waste much time in debating with heretics,
because battle would lead to battle and dispute to dispute. Such is the
cunning of Satan, that, by the impudent talkativeness of such men, he
entangles good and faithful pastors, so as to draw them away from
diligence
in teaching. We must therefore beware lest we become engaged in
quarrelsome
disputes; for we shall never have leisure to devote our labors to the
Lord's
flock, and contentious men will never cease to annoy us.
When he commands him to avoid such persons, it is as if he said that he
must
not toil hard to satisfy them, and even that there is nothing better than
to
cut off the handle for fighting which they are eager to find. This is a
highly necessary admonition; for even they who would willingly take no
part
in strifes of words are sometimes drawn by shame into controversy, because
they think that it would be shameful cowardice to quit the field. Besides,
there is no temper, however mild, that is not liable to be provoked by the
fierce taunts of enemies, because they look upon it as intolerable that
those men should attack the truth, (as they are accustomed to do,) and
that
none should reply. Nor are there wanting men who are either of a combative
disposition, or excessively hot-tempered, who are eager for battle. On the
contrary, Paul does not wish that the servant of Christ should be much and
long employed in debating with heretics.
We must now see what he means by the word heretic. There is a common and
well-known distinction between a heretic and a schismatic. But here, in my
opinion, Paul disregards that distinction: for, by the term "heretic" he
describes not only those who cherish and defend an erroneous or perverse
doctrine, but in general all who do not yield assent to the sound doctrine
which he laid down a little before. Thus under this name he includes all
ambitious, unruly, contentious persons, who, led away by sinful passions,
disturb the peace of the Church, and raise disputings. In short, every
person who, by his overweening pride, breaks up the unity of the Church,
is
pronounced by Paul to be "heretic."
But we must exercise moderation, so as not instantly to declare every man
to
be a "heretic" who does not agree with our opinion. There are some matters
on which Christians may differ from each other, without being divided into
sects. Paul himself commands that they shall not be so divided, when he
bids
them keep their harmony unbroken, and wait for the revelation of God.
(Philippians 3:16.) But whenever the obstinacy of any person grows to such
an extent, that, led by selfish motives, he either separates from the
body,
or draws away some of the flock, or interrupts the course of sound
doctrine,
in such a case we must boldly resist.
In a word, a heresy or sect and the unity of the Church - are things
totally
opposite to each other. Since the unity of the Church is dear to God, and
ought to be held by us in the highest estimation, we ought to entertain
the
strongest abhorrence of heresy. Accordingly, the name of sect or heresy,
though philosophers and statesmen reckon it to be honorable, is justly
accounted infamous among Christians. We now understand who are meant by
Paul, when he bids us dismiss and avoid heretics. But at the same time we
ought to observe what immediately follows, -
After the first and second admonition; for neither shall we have a right
to
pronounce a man to be a heretic, nor shall we be at liberty to reject him,
till we have first endeavored to bring him back to sound views. ("Au droit
chemin." - "To the right road.") He does not mean any "admonition,"
whatever, or that of a private individual, but an "admonition" given by a
minister, with the public authority of the Church; for the meaning of the
Apostle's words is as if he had said, that heretics must be rebuked with
solemn and severe censure.
They who infer from this passage, that the sup****ters of wicked doctrines
must be restrained by excommunication alone, and that no rigorous measures
beyond this must be used against them, do not argue conclusively. There is
a
difference between the duties of a bishop and those of a magistrate.
Writing
to Titus, Paul does not treat of the office of a magistrate, but points
out
what belongs to a bishop. ("Ce qu'il convient au Pasteur de faire." -
"What
it belongs to the pastor to do.") Yet moderation is always best, that,
instead of being restrained by force and violence, they may be corrected
by
the discipline of the Church, if there be any ground to believe that they
can be cured.
11 Knowing that he who is such is ruined He declares that man to be
"ruined," as to whom there is no hope of repentance, because, if our
labor
could bring back any man to the right path, it should by no means be
withheld. The metaphor is taken from a building, which is not merely
decayed
in some part, but completely demolished, so that it is incapable of being
repaired.
He next points out the sign of this ruin - an evil conscience, when he
says,
that they who do not yield to admonitions are condemned by themselves;
for,
since they obstinately reject the truth, it is certain that they sin
willfully and of their own accord, and therefore it would be of no
advantage
to admonish them.
At the same time, we learn from Paul's words that we must not rashly or at
random pronounce any man to be a heretic; for he says, "Knowing that he
who
is such is ruined." Let the bishop therefore beware lest, by indulging his
passionate temper, he treat with excessive harshness, as a heretic, one
whom
he does not yet know to be such.
(John Calvin)
---
Verse 10. A man that is an heretic. The word heretic is now commonly
applied
to one who holds some fundamental error of doctrine, "a person who holds
and
teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made
the standard of orthodoxy." Webster. The Greek word here used (airetikov-
haireticos) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The corresponding
noun
(airesiv- hairesis) occurs in the following places: Ac 5:17 15:5, 24:5
Ac 26:5 28:22, where it is rendered sect; and Ac 24:14 1Co 11:19 Gal 5:20;
2Pe 2:1, where it is rendered heresy, and heresies.
The true notion of the word is that of one who is a promoter of a sect or
party. The man who makes divisions in a church, instead of aiming to
promote
unity, is the one who is intended. Such a man may form sects and parties
on
some points of doctrine on which he differs from others, or on some
custom,
religious rite, or peculiar practice; he may make some unim****tant matter
a
ground of distinction from his brethren, and may refuse to have fellow****p
with them, and endeavour to get up a new organization. Such a man,
according
to the Scripture usage, is a heretic, and not merely one who holds a
different doctrine from that which is regarded as orthodoxy. The spirit of
the doctrine here is the same as in Ro 16:17, and the same class of
persons
is referred to. "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to
the doctrine which ye have received; and avoid them."
The word here used is defined by Robinson, (Lex.,) "one who creates
dissensions, introduces errors-a factious person." It is not found in
classic Greek, but often in ecclesiastical writers. See Suicer's Thesau.
After the first and second admonition. Comp. Mt 18:15-17. That is, do not
do
it hastily and rashly. Give him an op****tunity to explain himself, and to
repent and abandon his course. No man is to be cut off without giving him
a
proper op****tunity to vindicate his conduct, and to repent if he has done
wrong. If, after the first and second admonition, a man, who is
undoubtedly
doing wrong, will not repent, then he is to be cut off. The apostle does
not
say in what way this admonition is to be given, or whether it should be
public or private. The language which he uses would justify either, and
the
method which is to be adopted is doubtless to be determined by
cir***stances. The thing which is to be reached is, that his fault is to
be
fairly set before his mind.
Reject. paraitou. This word is rendered excuse in Lu 14:18,19; refuse, Ac
25:11 1Ti 4:7, 5:11 Heb 12:25
avoid, 2Ti 2:23; and entreated, Heb 12:19. Its prevailing meaning, as used
in connections like the one before us, is, to reject in relation to an
office; that is, to decline appointing one to an office. It probably had a
primary reference to that here, and meant that a man who was given to
making
dissensions, or who was a factious person, should not be admitted to an
office in the church. The general direction would also include this-that
he
should not be admitted to the church. He is neither to be owned as a
member,
nor admitted to office. Comp. Mt 18:17: "Let him be unto thee as a heathen
man and a publican." In regard to this passage, then, we may observe,
(1.) that the utmost limit which this allows is mere exclusion. It does
not
allow us to follow the offender with injury.
(2.) It does not authorize us to oppose one on account of his mere private
opinions. The essential idea is that of a factious, division-making man; a
man who aims to form sects and parties, whether on account of opinions, or
from any other cause.
(3.) It does not make it right to deliver such a man over to the "secular
arm," or to harm him in body, soul, property, or reputation. It gives no
power to torture him on the rack, or with thumb-screws, or to bind him to
the stake. It authorizes us not to recognise him as a Christian brother,
or
to admit him to an office in the church -but beyond this it gives us no
right to go. He has a right to his own opinion still, so far as we are
concerned, and we are not to molest him in the enjoyment of that right.
(4.) It demands that, when a man is undoubtedly a heretic in the sense
here
explained, there should be the utmost kindness towards him, in order if
possible to reclaim him. We should not begin by attacking and denouncing
his
opinions; or by formally arraigning him; or by blazoning his name abroad
as
a heretic; but he is to be dealt with in all Christian kindness and
brotherly fidelity. He is to be admonished more than once by those who
have
the right to admonish him; and then, and then only, if he does not repent,
he is to be simply avoided. That is to be an end of the matter so far as
we
are concerned. The power of the church there ceases. It has no power to
deliver him over to any one else for persecution or punishment, or in any
way to meddle with him. He may live where he pleases; pursue his own
plans;
entertain his own opinions or company, provided he does not interfere with
us; and though we have a right to examine the opinions which he may
entertain, yet our work with him is done. If these principles had been
observed, what scenes of bloody and cruel persecution in the church would
have been avoided!
{*} "heretic" "a factious man" {d} "reject" Mt 18:17
Verse 11. Knowing that he that is such is subverted. Literally, is turned
out; or, is changed, i.e., for the worse. He has gone from the right way,
and therefore he should be rejected.
And sinneth, being condemned of himself. His own conscience condemns him.
He
will approve the sentence, for he knows that he is wrong; and his
self-condemnation will be punishment sufficient. His own course, in
attempting a division or schism in the church, shows him that it is right
that he should be separated from the communion of Christians. He that
attempts to rend the church, without a good reason, should himself be
separated from it.
{+} "condemned of himself" "self-condemned"
(Albert Barnes, "Barnes New Testament Notes")
---
10. heretic-Greek "heresy," originally meant a division resulting from
individual self-will; the individual doing and teaching what he chose,
independent of the teaching and practice of the Church. In course of time
it
came to mean definitely "heresy" in the modern sense; and in the later
Epistles it has almost assumed this meaning. The heretics of Crete, when
Titus was there, were in doctrine followers of their own self-willed
"questions" reprobated in Tit 3:9, and immoral in practice.
reject-decline, avoid; not formal excommunication, but, "have nothing more
to do with him," either in admonition or intercourse.
11. is . subverted-"is become perverse."
condemned of himself-He cannot say, no one told him better: continuing the
same after frequent admonition, he is self-condemned. "He sinneth"
wilfully
against knowledge.
(Robert Jamieson, "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole
Bible")
---
10, 11. An heretic. A divider, or schismatic. Any one who preaches
doctrines
which divide the household of faith is a heretic. So is any schismatic or
factious man. Reject. First admonish and warn, repeat it, and if there is
no
change, then refuse his fellow****p. 11. Knowing, etc. No one can continue
factious unless he is perverted from the truth. This is the only passage
in
the New Testament where "heretic" occurs, though "heresy" is elsewhere
named.
(Barton W. Johnson, "People's New Testament")
---
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
The ministers of the word must at once cast off heretics, that is, those
who
stubbornly and seditiously disquiet the Church, and will pay no attention
to
ecclesiastical admonitions.
(from Geneva Notes)
---
Titus 3:10, 11
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
[A man that is a heretic] Generally defined, one that is obstinately
attached to an opinion contrary to the peace and comfort of society, and
will neither submit to Scripture nor reason. Here it means a person who
maintains Judaism in opposition to Christianity, or who insists on the
necessity of cir***cision, etc., in order to be saved. This is obviously
the
meaning of the word heretic in the only place in which it occurs in the
sacred writings.
[After the first and second admonition, reject] Labour to convince him of
his error; but if he will not receive instruction, if he has shut his
heart
against conviction, then-burn him alive? No, even if demonstrably a
heretic
in any one sense of that word, and a disturber of the peace of the church,
God gives no man any other authority over him but to shun him, paraitou.
Do
him no harm in body, soul, character, or substance; hold no communion with
him; but leave him to God. See the notes at Acts 5:17, and Acts 24:14,
where
the word heresy is particularly explained.
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself.
[Is subverted] Is turned out of the way in which he may be saved, and
consequently sinneth-enters into that way that leads to destruction.
[Being condemned of himself.] This refers to the Judaizing teacher, who
maintained his party and opinions for filthy lucre's sake. He was
conscious
of his own insincerity; and that he proclaimed not his system from a
conscientious love of truth, but from a desire to get his livelihood. Were
the church in all countries, whether established by law or unestablished,
strictly scrutinized, multitudes of heretics of this kind would be found.
And perhaps this is the only bad sense in which the word should be
understood.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
---
Heresy - from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion
chosen,
and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17;
15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its
character.
Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning
attached
to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Gal 5:20). This
word
also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor 11:19). In Titus
3:10
a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions,"
and
who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines
not emanating from God (2 Peter 2:1).
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary)
---
HERESY: (her'-e-si), (her'-e-si) (hairesis, from verb haireo, "to
choose"):
The word has acquired an ecclesiastical meaning that has passed into
common
usage, containing elements not found in the term in the New Testament,
except as implied in one passage. In classical Greek, it may be used
either
in a good or a bad sense, first, simply for "choice," then, "a chosen
course
of procedure," and afterward of various schools and tendencies. Polybius
refers to those devoting themselves to the study of Greek literature as
given to the Hellenike hairesis. It was used not simply for a teaching or
a
course followed, but also for those devoting themselves to such pursuit,
namely, a sect, or assembly of those advocating a particular doctrine or
mode of life. Thus, in Acts, the word is used in the Greek, where the King
James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "sect,"
"sect of the Sadducees" (Acts 5:17), "sect of the Nazarenes" (24:5). In
Acts
26:5 the Pharisees are called "the straitest hairesis (sect)." The name
was
applied contemptuously to Christianity (Acts 24:14; 28:22). Its
application,
with censure, is found in 1 Cor 11:19 m; Gal 5:20 margin, where it is
shown
to interfere with that unity of faith and community of interests that
belong
to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all
Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all
believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against.
Ellicott, on Gal 5:20, correctly defines "heresies" (AV, the English
Revised
Version) as "a more aggravated form of dichostasia" (the American Standard
Revised Version "parties") "when the divisions have developed into
distinct
and organized parties"; so also 1 Cor 11:19, translated by the Revised
Version (British and American) "factions." In 2 Peter 2:1, the transition
toward the subsequent ecclesiastical sense can be traced. The "destructive
heresies" (Revised Version margin, the English Revised Version margin
"sects
of perdition") are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life
very
fully described throughout the entire chapter, and who, in such course,
separated themselves from the fellow****p of the church.
In the fixed ecclesiastical sense that it ultimately attained, it
indicated
not merely any doctrinal error, but "the open espousal of fundamental
error"
(Ellicott on Titus 3:10), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate
maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of
Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with
aggressive
attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders. Roman
Catholics, regarding all professed Christians who are not in their
communion
as heretics, modify their doctrine on this point by distingui****ng between
Formal and terial Heresy, the former being unconscious and unintentional,
and between different degrees of each of these cl***** (Catholic
Encyclopedia, VII, 256 ff). For the development of the ecclesiastical
meaning, see Suicer's Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, I, 119-23.
(Henry E. Jacobs, from "International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia")
---
HERESY: False doctrine, or teaching which denies one of the foundational
beliefs of the church such as the Lord****p or deity of Jesus. While the
word
itself is not used in the New Testament of the NKJV, the writings of the
apostle Paul and other early church leaders make it clear that heretical
teachings were a problem in the New Testament church.
In the Book of 2 Corinthians, Paul condemned certain "false apostles" and
"deceitful workers" who claimed to be "apostles of Christ" (2 Cor 11:13).
These may have been the JUDAIZERS, who tried to force believers to observe
the Jewish ritual of CIR***CISION before they could be accepted as members
of the church. The writer of 1 John also condemned a heretical group known
as the GNOSTICS, who denied the deity of Jesus (1 John 2:22).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
---
HERESY (Grk. hairesis, a "choice"). Means, in the NT: (1) a chosen course
of
thought and action; hence one's chosen opinion, tenet, and so a sect or
party, as the Sadducees (Acts 5:17); the Pharisees (15:5; 26:5); and the
Christians (24:5,14; 28:22); (2) dissensions arising from diversity of
opinions and aims (Gal 5:20, marg.; 1 Cor 11:19, KJV; NASB, "factions";
NIV,
"differences"); (3) doctrinal departures from revealed truth, or erroneous
views (Titus 3:10, KJV; 2 Peter 2:1); the apostles vigorously warned the
church against such departures (Acts 20:29; Phil 3:2).
In the apostolic age we find three fundamental forms of heresy, which
reappear with various modifications in almost every subsequent period.
Judaistic. "The Judaizing tendency, the heretical counterpart of Jewish
Christianity, so insists on the unity of Christianity with Judaism, as to
sink the former to the level of the latter, and make the Gospel merely a
perfected law. It regards Christ also as a mere prophet, a second Moses,
and
denies, or at least wholly overlooks, his priestly and kingly offices, and
his divine nature in general. The Judaizers were Jews in reality, and
Christians only in appearance and name. They held cir***cision and the
whole
moral and ceremonial law of Moses to be still binding, and the observance
of
them necessary to salvation. Of Christianity as a new, free, and universal
religion, they had no conception. The same heresy, more fully developed,
appears in the 2 d century under the name of Ebionism."
The Paganizing or Gnostic Heresy. "This exaggerates the Pauline view of
the
distinction of Christianity from Judaism, sunders Christianity from its
historical basis, resolves the real humanity of the Saviour into a
Docetistic illusion (i.e., the heavenly Being, whose nature is pure light,
suddenly appearing as a sensuous apparition). The author of this baptized
heathenism, according to the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is
Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas
and practices, and gave himself out, in pantheistic style, for an
emanation
of God. This heresy, in the 2 d century, spread over the whole Church,
east
and west, in various schools of gnosticism."
Syncretistic Heresy. As attempts had already been made, before Christ, by
Philo and others to blend the Jewish religion with heathen philosophy,
especially that of Pythagoras and Plato, so now, under the Christian name,
there appeared confused combinations of these opposing systems, forming
either a paganizing Judaism or a Judaizing paganism, according as the
Jewish
or the heathen element prevailed.
"Whatever their differences, however, all these three fundamental heresies
amount at last to a more or less distinct denial of the central mystery of
the Gospel-the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of the
world.
They make Christ either a mere man or a mere superhuman phantom; they
allow,
at all events, no real and abiding union of the divine and human natures
in
the person of the Redeemer."
Heresy disturbed the unity of doctrine and of fellow****p in the early
church, which was therefore forced to exclude those holding false doctrine
from its communion. Once excluded, they formed societies of their own.
This
was the case with the Novatians, Gnostics, Donatists, etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Blunt, ed., Dictionary of Sects, Heresies,
Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought (1874); J. W. C.
Wand, The Four Great Heresies (1950); J. H. Gerstner, Theology of the
Major
Sects (1960); H. Davies, Christian Deviations (1965); W. R. Martin, The
Kingdom of the Cults (1985).
(from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary)
---
Opposing False Teachers
Having concluded the list of qualifications for the elder with a reference
to refuting error, Paul goes on to unmask the false teachers in the Cretan
church. These opponents of Paul must have arisen soon after the churches
were planted, but we cannot be certain exactly how this came about.
Heresy involves more than simply teaching an unorthodox doctrine. Just as
the Christian message affects the whole life, heresy left unchecked
penetrates deep into the community's and the individual's life and
thought,
leaving nothing undisturbed. But its subtle beginnings and secretive
motives
often make it undetectable until it has surfaced as a movement with
increasing momentum. For this reason Paul identifies and unequivocally
denounces the false teachers and their doctrine.The False Teachers
What kind of people would, in the name of Christianity, oppose the true
faith? Paul's indictment of them, which is designed to expose and
discredit
them completely, begins by revealing some telltale clues of heresy.
Far from being innocent seekers of truth, verse 10 ****trays false teachers
as willful and culpable. Rebellious (see v. 6; 1 Tim 1:9) describes them
as
consciously defiant and in opposition to Paul's authority and work. Paul
characterizes their activity as "idle" or "mere talk," a reference both to
their meaningless speculation and discussions and to the pagan quality of
their "knowledge" (1 Tim 1:6). But it is as deceivers (v. 10) that false
teachers do their most dangerous work; they willfully lead others astray.
Paul's language places them into the same category as the heretics in
Ephesus, who, by misrepresenting God's law and causing others to break it,
come under its condemnation (1 Tim 1:8-10).
The description those of the cir***cision (v. 10) provides a clue to the
identity of those troubling the Cretan churches. As the term's use
elsewhere
suggests, the troublemakers were Jewish converts (Acts 10:45; 11:2; Gal
2:7-9, 12). Earlier Paul opposed Jewish believers in Galatia who were
teaching the need to return to the ceremonies of the law to achieve
righteousness. While this is not the same group, nor precisely the same
teaching (see below), we can at least see that the influences of Judaism
on
the church had not yet ceased.
Paul's description is too brief to make absolutely plain the meaning of
ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach (v.
11).
This may be a reference to the turning of whole house churches to the
heresy, or possibly some part of their doctrine challenged traditional
concepts concerning the household. To judge from 2:1-10, their teaching
may
have spawned a disregard for the accepted patterns of behavior in the
various social relation****ps. Either way, the word whole here suggests
that
the influence of this doctrine was thorough. In Ephesus disruptions
resulted
from a misunderstanding of salvation and the times, and something similar
may have been at work in Crete. These false teachers disrupted the unity
of
the church and endangered the church's reputation with those outside, who
valued highly the traditional social structure.
False teachers can also be detected by their false motives. These
"Christian" teachers in Crete were seeking to make a profit from their
ministry. Such financial motives expose the false teacher's selfish desire
to benefit more than the hearers from the "ministry" (compare 1 Tim
6:5-10).
The description Paul has thus far given has drawn out the obvious faults
of
the false teachers. When their attitudes, methods and motives are exposed,
there can be no doubt that these people are evil. Paul puts the cap on
this
expose with his surprising quotation of Epimenides (v. 12). He calls this
ancient religious teacher, from the sixth century B.C., one of their own
[that is, the false teachers'] prophets. This first connection probably
lies
in their common profession, teaching religious fables, and in their common
homeland, Crete. But how does Paul mean the citation to be understood?
Cretans had acquired the name liars because of their claim that the tomb
of
Zeus was on Crete. Thus a reference to religious deceit is at the heart of
the saying. These false teachers have fulfilled Epimenides' prophecy in
their own generation by propagating a religious lie. The rest of the
quotation, evil brutes, lazy gluttons, associates the false religious
claim
with uncontrolled, wanton behavior. Notice how closely Paul's description
of
the errorists corresponds to the three-part saying: they are deceivers (v.
10), rebels and disrupters (vv. 10-11), with minds set on money (v. 11).
Clearly, in the case of these Cretan heretics, the ancient forecast held
true. Today the religious lies propagated by cult leaders (those that draw
attention away from the gospel) belong to the same category. Their purpose
is to attract attention to the leader or the cult's ruling elite. Their
result is self-gratifying behavior on the part of the leaders and
ignorance
on the part of naive followers.
Paul describes the false teaching in verse 14 with two terms. The first,
Jewish myths, is similar to the "myths and genealogies" mentioned in 1
Timothy 1:4. Together with the reference to genealogies in 3:9, the term
probably indicates a peculiar use of the Old Testament (see 1 Tim 1:4 and
notes). Verse 15 implies that they were preoccupied with ritual purity,
which suggests that the false doctrine had some affinity with the teaching
about foods and defilement in Colosse (Col 2:16-23) and Ephesus (1 Tim
4:3).
Verse 16 may reflect a claim on their part to special knowledge: they
claim
to know God. However, Paul's language is too general to allow us to be
sure
of this, and it is better to understand the statement in Jewish terms as a
claim to be zealous and exacting in their approach to "the faith."
The second term in verse 14 describes the false teaching as "commands of
men." This is a technical term, which goes back to Isaiah 29:13, for
teaching of human origin that is added to God's revelation (the NIV
somewhat
obscures this nuance). Jesus picked it up in his denunciation of Jewish
regulations about clean and unclean things (Mt 15:9; Mk 7:7). And Paul
describes the ascetic practices in Colosse with this term (Col 2:22).
Ironically, adherence to such regulations, which to the false teachers
indicated holiness, was actually an indication of how far they had strayed
from the truth (of the Christian message; v. 14).
Paul operated on the basis of Jesus' principle "Nothing outside a man can
make him `unclean' by going into him. . . . What comes out of a man makes
him `unclean' " (Mk 7:15, 20). This Paul translates in verse 15: To the
pure, all things are pure, but to those who . . . do not believe, nothing
is
pure (compare Rom 14:14). Purity that counts comes only through faith in
Christ. The heretics' obsession with external purity grew out of unbelief
and rejection of the gospel. In their false teaching they cut themselves
off
from the One who could cleanse them. Their rejection of the truth (v. 14)
signaled the corruption of their m |
