# Do false teacher's know they are false teachers?



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

2 Timothy 3:13

"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."

Can anyone explain this text in light of my question?


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2005)

Jeremy,
Generally, I would say no. However, I would think that there are a few out there whom are convicted by their own sinfulness, and deep down, know they are illicit.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

It is my personal belief that these people spoken of in Matthew 7 are aghast that they are _workers_ of iniquity.


----------



## JohnV (May 22, 2005)

I might try, Jeremy. 

Once a teacher gets a group around him who supports him, in other words, once you start tickling people's ears, the rest is just a snowballing effect. There is a difference between the kind of sincerety where you are honest with your own feelings and persuasions, and a kind of sencerity where you are honest with truth. The more that line is blurred the more deceivers will think they are doing right. The more trouble they run into as far as consistency with truth is concerned, the more they will rely upon the testimony of men rather than God. And the more they do that, the more obvious the deceit becomes. And yet they will not relent, for by then they have actually believed their opinions to be truth; and made truth into lies. 

It is quite easy in our day to begin to think that a persuasion of a particular issue, not explicitly revealed from Scripture, (what I would call a 'non-Bible-necessitating view) is a necessary consequence of Scripture, and therefore may be imposed authoritatively. It may even begin as an honest opinion, and then be equated to a Bible-necessitated doctrine, and eventually take over the Bible. 

Let me give you an example, one painfully present in our own settings:

Here you have a candidate coming for examination before Presbytery. He is asked many questions, but soon things start to get hung up on his views concerning the creation days. He supports the Framework Hypothesis view, claiming that it does not violate Scripture of the Confessions, as ruled by his denomination. His examintation is not sustained, this being one of the main reasons.

Let us suppose that his examination had been sustained. Would your own pastor come under fire from anyone if he preached about a six-regular-day creation? No, of course not, because he can reference Exodus 20. Would this new licentiate then be permitted to preach about a three-day/six-day creation with the same freedom? 

See what has happened? Here there are two views on the creation, one which has reference in Scripture, the other not. The new licentiate has made them equal, and from that declared his right to choose from them just as he things your own minister has chosen from them, as the candidate explains. But is that really what is the case? No, not at all. The new candidate has taken liberty to propound his views from the pulpit, on the basis that the permitted view (the six-day "view") is nothing more than a view as well, instead of something referred from Scripture. Biblical necessity is now something different than it was; it is now license, where it used to be restriction.

But this goes on, and people get used to it. There is a growing polemicization on these issues, and no longer an authoritative appeal. It may have been his right to hold to an opinion, which really is his right, but it was never his right to diminish the six-day reference in Scripture. That is deceit. It was considered sincere all that time, but it never was truly sincere from the start. And now it has grown from deceit to deceit, for now it has effected unity in whole congregations, and it has greatly infuenced Biblical authority in the denomination. And the deceit continues to grow, for there still remains no one to point out the very simple comparison, namely:

1.This view has reference in Scripture; and

2. This other view has no reference in Scripture, but is imagined into the texts by implication of the theories, not by implication from Scripture. Therefore,

3. By equating the two, neither one is now actual Scripturally doctrinal. In effect, what has been done is the six-day theory must now either be excluded explicitly from the Confessions, if the Framework Hypothesis is acceptable to the Confessions, or the Framework Hypothesis must again be relegated to a personal opinion, something completely foreign to the ministry of the Word. And finally,

4. This was never about the creation days in the first place; it was about undermining authority.


Let's say that no one addresses this concern as to what has been done to Scripture or the Confessions. And this is repeated by different views on many other opinions as well. At one point one group even condems another, becoming exclusivists in their non-Bible-necessitated views. This has now grown from deceit to deceit to deceit. And it has divided the body of Christ, caused some to be expelled from the church, and bred mistrust and apprehension even before a minister mounts the pulpit. 

Things have gone from bad to worse. And yet the teachers continue to teach their non-Bible-necessitated doctrines. No one has yet shown Biblical necessity for the Framework Hypothesis, but it is equated to the regular six-day "view" (which is now nothing more than a view in spite of the Decalogue in Exodus 20. ) Though it is possible that Exodus 20 refers to the days metaphorically we are far from declaring that to be the case. Yet the FH has made just that ruling, and only on the authority of man, not on that of God. And this is repeated by opinion after opinion, issue after issue. It goes from bad to worse to worse yet. 

Where does it stop? 

We can talk about idealized scenarios, or scenarios in history now clearly documented. But the Scriptural warning is not so that we can interpret history, but rather to be warned and prepared in our own day. The question is whether we know they are false teachers. Do they know? Yes, I believe they do, otherwise they would not go the lengths they go to. 

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Jeremy (May 22, 2005)

Thanks Scott & John.

You are highly intelligent men and I thank God for you.

I think we're on to something here. Now the original question involved the text in 2 Timothy 3:13 which is okay that we didn't really discuss it. But it says they deceive and are being deceived. 

They are deceived by their sin and Satan. But my question is do they deceive others out of ignorance, simply trying to teach the opinions they are convinced are true? If they do this as John said with their opinions, they run the risk of Deifying their own minds to the point where they think whatever they say is gospel. The problem is that I can't picture someone going to Bible college and making a profession of Christ without ever being sincere at the start. Maybe a lot of false teachers are actually apostates who's conscience is seared with a hot iron? They have "forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." "“2 Peter 2:15

I am doubly convinced that these are all the "prosperity gospel" teachers of today.

Amen?


----------



## JohnV (May 22, 2005)

Well, Jeremy, I would agree, but you have to state things in the proportion that is accurate. In my own personal experiences, it began with doubt concerning what the Bible really said; then they made up their own minds about what it said, and then preached it as if it were the Word of God. Only the last could you say that his conscience was seared. Until then, he may have merely been a victim of a lax denominational standard, which licensed him to do just as he did. 

Prosperity preachers are much the same, in that respect. Success means rightness, does it not? If you preach you _ism_, and it doesn't garner objection, then it is successful. So you go on from there. If you preach gain from faith, and you get money sent to you, then it is successful, is it not? So you go on from there. But the conscience is seared when it has trapped you into doing acrobatics around Scripture to justify yourself, until you say the Bible says the exact opposite to what it really says. In other words, when you begin to believe yourself instead of the Word. 

Let me put it another way. Someone born into a church family, that has been Arminian for four generations, reads the Bible faithfully each day, and is devoted to the church He believes the Bible. Is that being seared? Maybe he doesn't yet know the organized, historical, and documented reading of God's Word, or at least not yet. As he continues to read, and submit, he eventually finds out that there is more to the Bible than his Arminian roots told him. This is completely different, wouldn't you say?

But if you have someone who has been given all the ins and outs, as well as the limitations, and he begins rather to believe himself than the Word, that is something else.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 22, 2005)

Some false teachers think they are teaching the truth--they are convinced their way is true. They are truly deceived by the Father of Lies. So, they are surprised at judgment day, when God rejects them. And some of them are devious people. They see the church as a way to further their own agenda, a way to make money, a way to get women, a way to get power over other people, etc. So, some of them teach things they don't believe, or even things they know are false because they have fleshly motivations. Both of these groups of people are "deceived", but in slightly different ways. Not too many (there could be some) teach lies because they knowingly serve Satan, and are delivering the souls of fools to him.

And the prosperity-gospel types? They could be in any of those camps. How did they get there? Were they less materialistic when they went to school? Maybe. Or they could have gone just to get a credential or degree that would get them through the first "hoop" and into the running for a position.

I reckon there's a host of teachers who think religion is just a way to "help people." They are "Christians" by default. They grew up going to some church or other. They aren't committed to the Faith, or the authority of the Bible, but they may use the Bible to teach "live-well" lessons, or "support this cause/idea/political party" message. And to the extent they believe in a God, they think he will honor their good-deeds on the last day. They don't see themselves as manipulators. Their enemies don't sit and listen to them; their enemies (personal and impersonal) are "out there."

There are teachers who want to change the direction their church is going. These people usually believe that they know the right way, and the people in the pew are sheep. A few are stuck in their ways, but the youth especially are malleable. The leadership may or may not be open to change. Now, it is possible that all this could be a prelude to change for the better, but bringing churces back to the truth is something that happens far less frequently (on a grand scale) than leading men astray. Error is manifold; the truth is single. I think that many of these people might justify espousing falsehood that they know is false for the sake of "the greater good." Why? Because a Body of Truth is not ultimate to them; a goal is.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## JohnV (May 22, 2005)

Yes, I agree with Bruce that many do not know they are false. I retract that. I'm sorry I made it appear otherwise. 

However, I was approaching this from a commitment to the witness of the Holy Spirit, and a sensitivity to God's blessing in one's life and doctrine. One of the signs of being out of sync with truth is manipulation. We all do it, but when one shuts to door to acknowledging it, then one is overtly guilty, as the Westminster Catechism says, of bearing false witness. That is done with someone's full knowledge. What makes it more subconscious rather than a purposeful action is that everyone is doing it or approves of it, and so the conscience becomes seared on small things. But one didn't get there without having the conscience say something somewhere along the line.


----------



## JohnV (May 22, 2005)

I just thought of something I used many years ago. The question can be put like this: does a false teacher wake up every morning and say to himself, "So, what can I do today to undermine God's Word, or the Church, or the ones put under my authority?" 

I don't think they do that. Maybe there are some, but we know them pretty easily, and usually they don't fool us. They don't even fool unbelievers for long.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 23, 2005)

Just my opinion and no more weight than that of a feather:

I would tend to think they are self deceived. I say that because when I was an atheist/agnostic, though not a teacher, I thought what I believed was true. Yet, and here is the kicker, at times I knew I was actively supressing the truth of God in my heart.

It is a hard position to describe - self deceived yet aware to some degree of the self deception. Calvin described the lost/false teachers in allegory - that they "receive" flashes of light/truth much like lightening during a storm at night. They see the flash revealing some truth and race toward that as fast as they can for the lightening is short lived which illuminates the path. But the infrequency and quickness of the flash is such that they are soon back into darkness. In the post darkness they race toward the former truth they briefly saw, but being in darkness and their memories fleeting over the lighted way they either under shoot, over shoot or veer from the truth they once saw. Thus, though in the direction of truth they end up missing the truth altogether and fall into falsehood in that direction. (ldh paraphrase from memory).

We see this in all sorts of philosophical systems which have some truth in the right light (God's Word), yet pursued as an end in and of itself it is utter falsehood. E.g., Rational thinking. Rational thinking is Biblical and correct in that context, yet Rationalism leads to falsehood. The same could be said for even biblical concepts taken without the Holy Spirit's guidance and the "conversation" of the church universal as a govenor for doctrine.

Ldh


----------



## JohnV (May 23, 2005)

Larry:

Sounds a lot like C. S. Lewis' description of the same thing in his book Pilgrim's Regress. Self-criticism is very hard to do; and even harder to tell about. I believe it to be a sign of the Spirit's working. I think what you said carries a lot of weight.


----------

