Naming names

[Internet Theologian]

So I ask, and this has nothing to do with fabrications in other threads. I am certain that will come up again all on its own.

Naming names and calling out apostasy and apostate leaders:

Jesus called out religious leaders in His day. He used descriptive language of them as well; note Matthew 23 and also Luke 11:37ff. He didn't 'avoid direct attacks of religious leaders' or 'sects', something we may call 'denominations' today.

Paul did the same, and used names; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:8; 2 Timothy 4:14. He called out those who left him. By name. 2 Timothy 4.

We are called to mark those who cause division and offenses contrary to sound doctrine; Romans 16:17ff. If we are to avoid them, then they are named and known. We are not called to pander to them, leave them alone, but are called to mark them, or literally to take aim.

Jude alluded to them not in a kind manner. Note Jude 1:3 as the exhortation to contend for the faith, and the balance of this short epistle. Peter described false apostates vividly as well, note 2 Peter.

The cry today is do it in Christian love, and that doing this (naming names) is not expressing Christian love. That 'attacks' (naming them for their false beliefs, practices, teachings) are maligned is unfortunate. That is a wrong and incomplete view of 'Christian love'.

It is not Biblically accurate to renounce this practice. It is a compromise and a cop out. The above are examples of this love and exemplify it as it is for the sheep and their protection. Note Paul's warning in Acts 20:18 ff.

I love the stand those men of God took, and love the same yet today. It is a biblical practice.

Recently a thread was locked because religious leaders were called out. Seems this biblical practice is frowned upon here.

Now, are we allowed to call out Joel Osteen? Benny Hinn? Zane Hodges? Charles Finney? Rob Bell? Brian McClaren? Herbert Armstrong? Kenneth Copeland? Lewis Sperry Chafer? Joseph Prince? Other false teachers and direct our aim at them?

Yes? No?

Name who is excluded and why.

Who is not to be called out? What false religious leader gets a free ride? Which denomination? Do we label an apostate Church a denomination because it may have someone saved within her, when she is apostate and not true? Got Scripture that states these are not to be called out, nor her leaders due to this, and that it is not nice or Christian?

Let's apply this unbiblical standard to the Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA, Restored Church of God, New Apostolic Reformation churches, PCUSA churches et al.

What sets the precedent? Scripture? Our own polity? Our wallet?

 

[Flippo63]

I see nothing wrong in calling out apostacy as long as it is well documented and not hearsay.

 

[TCassidy]

Much depends on how you determine a man is apostate. Jesus called out those teaching wrong doctrine, but He was the Omniscient God in Human form. He was therefore infallible.

Paul called out false teaching but he did so as he inscripturated inspired writings. He too was, therefore, infallible.

We, on the other hand, are slightly less than infallible. Before we call someone out as being apostate it would behoove us to make sure it is not merely our opinions but the clear and unequivocal teachings of scripture.

In other words, it would be wrong for a Calvinist to call out an Arminian as apostate just as it would be wrong for an Arminian to call out a Calvinist as apostate.

The same goes for the A - Pre - Post Millennial arguments. Or the pre - mid - post trib rapture differences among Millennialists.

Make sure it is something that violates the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Those who would deny:

1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

It would also behoove us to attack the false doctrine and not the man.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Much depends on how you determine a man is apostate. Jesus called out those teaching wrong doctrine, but He was the Omniscient God in Human form. He was therefore infallible.

Correct, but we are to examine beliefs via Scripture and still follow His example. No one here believes that because we are not Omniscient or infallible as only He is that we are excluded from doing as He had done.

By the way, only Christ is infallible. But you attribute this to others and believe you have misspoken.

Paul called out false teaching but he did so as he inscripturated inspired writings. He too was, therefore, infallible.

The inerrant Scriptures are what we use to determine false teachings, not whether or not comparatively we are 'infallible' as Paul. By the way, I don't believe apostles were 'infallible'. Not Peter, as mentioned in Galatians, he certainly was not infallible. However, the writings the Holy Spirit breathed them to write were infallible, but not the men who wrote them.

Therefore Paul was not infallible as a person, only in the teachings/writings supplied to him, not his person. Be careful here to notate this.

We, on the other hand, are slightly less than infallible.

As were they.

Before we call someone out as being apostate it would behoove us to make sure it is not merely our opinions but the clear and unequivocal teachings of scripture.

True, but this isn't only addressing being 'apostate'. Let's not rewrite the OP and only attack what we've rewritten.

In other words, it would be wrong for a Calvinist to call out an Arminian as apostate just as it would be wrong for an Arminian to call out a Calvinist as apostate.

Who is doing this? This isn't part of the OP at all.

The same goes for the A - Pre - Post Millennial arguments. Or the pre - mid - post trib rapture differences among Millennialists.

Make sure it is something that violates the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Those who would deny:

1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

It would also behoove us to attack the false doctrine and not the man.

There is way more to it than just the enumerated things you've mentioned. It is way deeper than that brother.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You're spot on IT. But alas, it is falling upon deaf ears.

 

[Internet Theologian]

You're spot on IT. But alas, it is falling upon deaf ears.

Those who have ears to hear will hear. Those who are otherwise and are bamboozled by false doctrine, political correctness, pragmatism, compromise, and rejection of the truths of Scripture presented in the OP will go on their merry way of self deception and will fall short of standing for truth. They will see their path as 'positive' and their message and method as 'positive' yet this is no indication of being of the truth or of being Scriptural.

 

[TCassidy]

By the way, only Christ is infallible. But you attribute this to others and believe you have misspoken.

I have not, and do not, attribute infallibility to any mortal man.

I don't believe apostles were 'infallible'.

I don't either, but I do believe the Holy Spirit Who inspired the words Paul wrote is infallible.

It is way deeper than that brother.

I know, but for me to type out 100 pages or so just didn't seem in keeping with the need for brevity on the forum.

 

[JonC]

So I ask, and this has nothing to do with fabrications in other threads. I am certain that will come up again all on its own.

Naming names and calling out apostasy and apostate leaders:

Jesus called out religious leaders in His day. He used descriptive language of them as well; note Matthew 23 and also Luke 11:37ff. He didn't 'avoid direct attacks of religious leaders' or 'sects', something we may call 'denominations' today.

Paul did the same, and used names; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:8; 2 Timothy 4:14. He called out those who left him. By name. 2 Timothy 4.

We are called to mark those who cause division and offenses contrary to sound doctrine; Romans 16:17ff. If we are to avoid them, then they are named and known. We are not called to pander to them, leave them alone, but are called to mark them, or literally to take aim.

Jude alluded to them not in a kind manner. Note Jude 1:3 as the exhortation to contend for the faith, and the balance of this short epistle. Peter described false apostates vividly as well, note 2 Peter.

The cry today is do it in Christian love, and that doing this (naming names) is not expressing Christian love. That 'attacks' (naming them for their false beliefs, practices, teachings) are maligned is unfortunate. That is a wrong and incomplete view of 'Christian love'.

It is not Biblically accurate to renounce this practice. It is a compromise and a cop out. The above are examples of this love and exemplify it as it is for the sheep and their protection. Note Paul's warning in Acts 20:18 ff.

I love the stand those men of God took, and love the same yet today. It is a biblical practice.

Recently a thread was locked because religious leaders were called out. Seems this biblical practice is frowned upon here.

Now, are we allowed to call out Joel Osteen? Benny Hinn? Zane Hodges? Charles Finney? Rob Bell? Brian McClaren? Herbert Armstrong? Kenneth Copeland? Lewis Sperry Chafer? Joseph Prince? Other false teachers and direct our aim at them?

Yes? No?

Name who is excluded and why.

Who is not to be called out? What false religious leader gets a free ride? Which denomination? Do we label an apostate Church a denomination because it may have someone saved within her, when she is apostate and not true? Got Scripture that states these are not to be called out, nor her leaders due to this, and that it is not nice or Christian?

Let's apply this unbiblical standard to the Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA, Restored Church of God, New Apostolic Reformation churches, PCUSA churches et al.

What sets the precedent? Scripture? Our own polity? Our wallet?

This is an interesting topic, IT.

We are to discern doctrine, guard our own doctrine, teach true doctrine, and guard against false teachers. I understand calling out false doctrine to be such, and of course the NT example is within the local church or assembly (Rm. 14:4).

Likewise, Romans 16:17-19 is a warning against intruders who would cause divisions and create obsticles contrary to the teachings they have been taught. So again, we are to guard our doctrine and guard against false teachers.

I agree with you that those within the local church need to identify the false teachers and warn against them. Much too often there are weaker brethren who will be influenced by the appeal many of these heretics exercise over the airwaves and publications. If we do not “name names” and point them out to those whom God has entrusted to our care, then we share guilt when they are deceived.

What is odd is that some take this defensive posture to be offensive. They “take the show on the road,” so to speak, and believe that they have a holy mandate to correct the errors they see in the interpretations of others outside of their authority. They, striving to combat false teachings, themselves become false and disobedient teachers. I don't read the OP to refer to this type of behavior, but to be concerned with discernment within the local assemblies.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

I believe it is very important to make sure the issue is doctrinal and not just methodology. The brother down the street may do it 180 degrees differently than I do it; that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

 

[JamesL]

This is one area of disagreement between my pastor and me. He doesn't like to throw people under the bus, so to speak.

But of course, he comes from a very strict Pentecostal background, and they're always spouting the whole "touch not God's anointed" thing....

And he readily admits that it's hard to kill old habits, etc.

But when I'm leading bible study, if there's a frame of reference and an a contrast against a false teacher, I don't generically present "there are some who might teach..."

I have quoted Jesse Duplantis' heretical misuse of Proverbs 18:21 "death and life are in the power of the tongue"

Which he then taught that we choose when we die, that God has the power to take our life, but doesn't have the authority unless we relinquish it to him. I heard him say this on tv

I give the specific name, and as close as I can to an exact quote from what I have read with my own eyes or heard with my ears.

I don't think this is something we should tread haphazardly into. We shouldn't be spreading second hand info as though we heard it first hand.

It's also somewhat disingenuous if everything we have is from 1974 or 1982....

People do change, and so do their teachings. Get something current, not Benny Hinn's "trinity of trinity" nonsense from 30 years ago. If he's still a heretic, he will have been teaching heresy last week

 

[JonC]

We also have to be aware that sometimes these "warnings" amount to nothing more than gossip.

I have seen people enter into discussions/debates, argue theology, and go back to their church or friends only to gossip about the people with whom they have disagreed. The next month these same people are at the same table discussing the same issues and taking them home again to gossip. They argue against the teachings of others (whether legitimate or not) but in their conduct prove themselves unrighteous and disobedient. (Titus 3:2; James 1:26)

We often speak of God giving people over to depraved minds associated with one sin, but it does not seem very regularly that we recognize gossip (along with slanders, arrogant, boastful, unloving, and unmerciful... to name a few more distinctions of unrighteousness) as being such a serious sin. (Rom. 1:26-32)

My point is not that we should shrink back from guarding against false teachings within our scope of authority, but that we need to be careful that through such zeal we also do not fall into sin and in preaching to others prove ourselves disqualified. (1 Cor. 9:25)

 

[Rolfe]

Make sure it is something that violates the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Those who would deny:

1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

Amen to this.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I have not, and do not, attribute infallibility to any mortal man.

I don't either, but I do believe the Holy Spirit Who inspired the words Paul wrote is infallible.

I know, but for me to type out 100 pages or so just didn't seem in keeping with the need for brevity on the forum.

Well, I wanted to make certain no one got the impression Paul was infallible as you stated; 'He, too therefore was infallible'. It would be easy to take it that way as you worded it. I know you're doctrinally sound (most of the time) and thought it needed clarity.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

I believe it is very important to make sure the issue is doctrinal and not just methodology. The brother down the street may do it 180 degrees differently than I do it; that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

I haven't studied out this passage in depth. It should be buffered with didactic NT epistles though.

 

[Internet Theologian]

This is one area of disagreement between my pastor and me. He doesn't like to throw people under the bus, so to speak.

But of course, he comes from a very strict Pentecostal background, and they're always spouting the whole "touch not God's anointed" thing....

And he readily admits that it's hard to kill old habits, etc.

But when I'm leading bible study, if there's a frame of reference and an a contrast against a false teacher, I don't generically present "there are some who might teach..."

I have quoted Jesse Duplantis' heretical misuse of Proverbs 18:21 "death and life are in the power of the tongue"

Which he then taught that we choose when we die, that God has the power to take our life, but doesn't have the authority unless we relinquish it to him. I heard him say this on tv

I give the specific name, and as close as I can to an exact quote from what I have read with my own eyes or heard with my ears.

I don't think this is something we should tread haphazardly into. We shouldn't be spreading second hand info as though we heard it first hand.

It's also somewhat disingenuous if everything we have is from 1974 or 1982....

People do change, and so do their teachings. Get something current, not Benny Hinn's "trinity of trinity" nonsense from 30 years ago. If he's still a heretic, he will have been teaching heresy last week

Well, his errors are a take off of the false notions of innate faith and free will. Too many people in churches read the popular works of the Osteen and Myer types. It tells me they simply don't heed or listen to any sound doctrine they've been taught.

 

[Internet Theologian]

We also have to be aware that sometimes these "warnings" amount to nothing more than gossip.

I have seen people enter into discussions/debates, argue theology, and go back to their church or friends only to gossip about the people with whom they have disagreed. The next month these same people are at the same table discussing the same issues and taking them home again to gossip. They argue against the teachings of others (whether legitimate or not) but in their conduct prove themselves unrighteous and disobedient. (Titus 3:2; James 1:26)

We often speak of God giving people over to depraved minds associated with one sin, but it does not seem very regularly that we recognize gossip (along with slanders, arrogant, boastful, unloving, and unmerciful... to name a few more distinctions of unrighteousness) as being such a serious sin. (Rom. 1:26-32)

My point is not that we should shrink back from guarding against false teachings within our scope of authority, but that we need to be careful that through such zeal we also do not fall into sin and in preaching to others prove ourselves disqualified. (1 Cor. 9:25)

That's major immaturity on their part. There are times it may be of value to someone and it should be spoken prudently if at all. Whether or not the person is deemed as only gossiping is to be determined case by case I suppose. Anyhow all of this needs to be handled prudently. Many Christians are very easily offended, another indicator of immaturity.

 

[Internet Theologian]

By the way, I appreciate the stance that everyone here is taking in this particular thread. We certainly could use more men and women of God who unashamedly stand for truth and expose error.

 

[revmwc]

As long as we agree on these:
1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

Which are the truths of scripture then why is much of what some say called a lie and false when it agrees with these but the means of Faith is debated or that is not quite the way some believe and yet they say it is false?

 

[JamesL]

As long as we agree on these:
1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

Which are the truths of scripture then why is much of what some say called a lie and false when it agrees with these but the means of Faith is debated or that is not quite the way some believe and yet they say it is false?

I don't believe the "facts" about Christ and inspiration are the only essentials.

I believe one's view of accessing the grace of God is an essential, too. If one believes it were on the basis of works, he is outside the bounds of a biblical gospel. To the one who works, it's not a gift.

 

[Internet Theologian]

As long as we agree on these:
1. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.

2. The substitutionary death of Jesus.

3. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

5. The second coming of Christ.

Which are the truths of scripture then why is much of what some say called a lie and false when it agrees with these but the means of Faith is debated or that is not quite the way some believe and yet they say it is false?

The RCC believes in all that and teaches all outside her are apostate. She also teaches Mary is co- Redemptrix and co-Mediatrix.

That said I think your good list falls well short of a standard test.