Being Watchful against False Teachings: A Survey

[cmartin]

I am sitting in on a class geared toward the preparation of men for office in the church. We are going through Strauch's excellent book "Biblical Eldership" and meeting weekly to discuss what we are learning in our readings. This week, while progressing through the accompanying workbook, we came upon a discussion question prompting each man to propose as short list of contemporary 'false teachings' to which the local flock might be particularly susceptible.

In that vein, I wanted to conduct an informal survey among you all in order to gain a more comprehensive perspective regarding contemporary false teachings. I would also be interested in any distinction of or degrees in susceptibility that you might assess with respects to more broadly evangelical churches versus confessional, reformed churches--and both in an American and/or Western context.

What say ye?

Thanks in advance for your responses!

 

[SolaScriptura]

Incidentally, while not addressing or labeling specific contemporary false teachings, on my blog I just completed a 3 part series in which I discuss the dangers of as well as approaches and methods false teachers commonly employ in their quest to outwit and deceive...

 

[Miss Marple]

Two kingdoms theology. (just within the church. Not within unbelievers I've tried to witness to).

Pantheism, or, all religions are alike. All roads lead to heaven.

If you are good enough, you will go to heaven (works salvation).

Higher criticism (the Bible is not to be taken seriously, but can be re-worded to fit the readers' preferences).

The Bible is not the word of God, but of men.

...These are the things I run into, mostly.

 

[irresistible_grace]

I would NOT include Two Kingdoms Theology as false teaching.

There is nothing new under the sun...
Most of the contemporary "false teachings" are old heresies with new names.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think we need to be more careful about what is properly referred to as a "false teaching."

 

[irresistible_grace]

AntiTrinitarianism (Jesus Only movement)
Antinomianism (Once saved always saved - live like a devil)
Semipelagianism (Free will rather than a freed will)
Christian Zionism (Dispensationalism)
Modernism & Liberalism
Anabaptist Separatism

 

[Miss Marple]

I apologize if I mislabeled "Two Kingdoms."

I don't know enough about it to label it properly.

I understand it to teach that God's law is for the church only, and does not inform civil society in any way.

If I am incorrect I'd appreciate being set straight.

 

[earl40]

I apologize if I mislabeled "Two Kingdoms."

I don't know enough about it to label it properly.

I understand it to teach that God's law is for the church only, and does not inform civil society in any way.

If I am incorrect I'd appreciate being set straight.

Though I am not conversant with "Two Kingdom" thought, or what exactly it is, I think God and His law is not for the church alone. His law, when applied correctly, to those outside the church does restrain evil.

 

[Zach]

I think before anyone can answer this effectively one has to be able to distinguish between teaching that is fale and false teaching. Regardless of where one stands on 2K theology, we shouldn't be lumping it in with pantheism.

 

[cmartin]

Incidentally, while not addressing or labeling specific contemporary false teachings, on my blog I just completed a 3 part series in which I discuss the dangers of as well as approaches and methods false teachers commonly employ in their quest to outwit and deceive...

Sounds like these blog posts would be very applicable to the current subject. Is this a public blog? Do you care to share the address?

 

[cmartin]

AntiTrinitarianism (Jesus Only movement)
Antinomianism (Once saved always saved - live like a devil)
Semipelagianism (Free will rather than a freed will)
Christian Zionism (Dispensationalism)
Modernism & Liberalism
Anabaptist Separatism

You make a great point; many contemporary false teachings are likely to be old heresies adapted to new circumstances. I like how you have suggested some of these connections in your response. Thanks!

 

[cmartin]

I think before anyone can answer this effectively one has to be able to distinguish between teaching that is fale and false teaching.

Interesting point. What would you propose is the substantive difference between teaching what is false and false teaching? Intent?

 

[cmartin]

Two kingdoms theology. (just within the church. Not within unbelievers I've tried to witness to).

I would NOT include Two Kingdoms Theology as false teaching.

I think we need to be more careful about what is properly referred to as a "false teaching."

Regardless of where one stands on 2K theology, we shouldn't be lumping it in with pantheism.

I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.

Each of these alternatives seeks to develop a doctrinal scheme with valid scriptural warrant that correctly balances the scope of and proper relationship between two aspects of our obedience in Christ: to love, worship and serve the living God (on the one hand) and to love our neighbor as Christians in our varied cultural callings, being in the world, yet not of it (on the other). Connected to the idea of vocation, 2K theology also makes important distinctions regarding the nature and mission of the church; in addition, it makes connections between our vocations and eschatology, seeking to put the former in its proper context relative to the latter.

I've not quite come down on one side or the other on the whole two kingdoms issue. But from what I have read the 30,000-ft view is something like this:
1) Christ is Lord over the sum total of all His creation (as the 2d person of the Trinity)
2) However His rule over that creation falls into two interacting but distinct jurisdictions.
i) Christ relates to 'Common Kingdom' as Creator; reigns over all men through Creation and Providence; exemplified in the Noahic covenant
ii) Christ relates to the 'Redemptive Kingdom' as Redeemer; reigns over the elect by his Word and Spirit; outworking of the Covenant of Grace
3) Our cultural activities (vocations) may be good, God-honoring and provide real, temporal blessings to our neighbors, yet they are not ultimate and are not to be conflated with the redemptive work of "the Kingdom".

So far as applying "the Law" to contemporary civil jurisprudence is concerned, I think that the 2K folks are in line with the Westminster standards:

WCF, XIX, IV: To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

I read 'general equity' here as meaning laws which enact the general principle contained in those various OT laws insofar as they were required in obedience to the moral law or as they were otherwise needful or helpful to one's neighbor.

As a final note, I have read Dr. VanDrunen's book, "Living in God's Two Kingdoms," and I highly recommend it for anyone hoping to get an idea of what 2K theology is about. In fact, the chapter on the Lord's Day is alone worth the price of the book. If you don't like what I've written above, please don't discount the book on my account, as I'm giving my own take on what I remember (and I have an awful memory; just ask my wife).

 

[Zach]

I think before anyone can answer this effectively one has to be able to distinguish between teaching that is fale and false teaching.

Interesting point. What would you propose is the substantive difference between teaching what is false and false teaching? Intent?

No, I don't think the difference is intent. There are well intentioned false teachers. I think it's degree from the truth of the gospel. As paedobaptists, we affirm that the Bible teachings that infants of believing parents should receive the external sign of the covenant. We believe our Baptist brothers are teaching that which is false. They are not false teachers because they affirm the truth of the gospel.

 

[jwithnell]

To the OP, reformed churches are facing false teaching regarding sanctification, as seen in federal vision, and questions surrounding the historicity of Adam. Whether or not a particular congregation is susceptible to these or other teachings would require a personal knowledge of the membership. Interesting question, though. If you are assessing such a vulnerability, it's less likely to occur, especially if additional teaching can be used to intervene.

 

[Pergamum]

The cultural captivity of missions (hyper-contextualization - especially among missions to muslims) is a huge theological error nowadays.

 

[Zach]

Great last two posts. I do think the greatest errors facing the church lie in the controversies around FV and the "Insider Movement" in Missions. Both of these are examples where the gospel is being distorted and lost.

 

[KSon]

I am dealing with a man that is caught up in the Hebrew Roots Movement heresy. It is basically a "Oneness" theology (Modalism), that gives preeminence to Hebrew translation of the NT; and in many place transliteration is substituted for translation. Like much cultic false-teaching, relies on "new discoveries", such as supposedly recent Ezekiel scroll finds which "teach us" that we have been mispronouncing the name of God, and therefore misunderstanding the essence of His nature, which, according to this heresy, is oneness and the manifestation of the essence is modal. This false teaching will completely deny that the NT was written originally in Greek. With this particular fellow, after much proclamation of the truth to him last night, it's not hard to see that the demon is in deep.

 

[Rich Koster]

The New Apostolic Reformation should be warned about. They champion the cultural missionary stuff Pergamum mentioned, YWAM, along with defective prayer techniques and false prophesies. There are a host of other problems, but these are the ones that have polluted mainstream evangelical congregations recently.

 

[chuckd]

Keswick and the Higher Life movement. I think this is deeply rooted in evangelicalism and elders should be watchful of those coming from that background.

The largest church in the U.S. teaches the prosperity gospel and it is largely being exported to Africa.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.

I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.

 

[Zach]

I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.

I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.

If I may, that's a little bit uncharitable, Randy. If I understand it correctly (and I very well might not!) 2K Theology says that it is not the duty of the State to uphold God's law. I haven't heard them say that God's law does not apply to the Christian.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.

I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.

If I may, that's a little bit uncharitable, Randy. If I understand it correctly (and I very well might not!) 2K Theology says that it is not the duty of the State to uphold God's law. I haven't heard them say that God's law does not apply to the Christian.

And you are telling me that that is not antinomian? I am not trying to be uncharitable at all. Just clarifying. What you have stated is certainly not biblical nor confessional. And it is against the Law of God. Both the state and the Church are to uphold the Law of God. It demeans the importance of it in Society and suppresses it. Your conclusion is just what is dangerous for society and the Church. Antinomianism is uncharitable because it hides God's Law and His Kingship over his creation.

 

[Miss Marple]

Antinominanism also really assaults the most vulnerable in our society. Death and suffering ensue. God's law is a protection for the believer and the unbeliever. When withheld, agony follows.

The opposite of loving our neighbor as ourselves. False teaching? I am leaning towards, "yes."

 

[Zach]

I was curious as to whether 2K theology would come up or not... A meaningful discussion of the topic is undoubtedly one for another thread. Nonetheless, the broader issue that 2K theology or its alternatives address is quite an urgent one for Christians with a genuine love for their neighbor.

I would classify Modern Reformed (not Reformed) Two Kingdom Theology and Natural Law as antinomian. So we could classify it as false teaching and dangerous if you ask me. The other end of the spectrum would be Neo-nomism and the Federal Vision. All of these have to do with some distortion of Christology and Covenant.

If I may, that's a little bit uncharitable, Randy. If I understand it correctly (and I very well might not!) 2K Theology says that it is not the duty of the State to uphold God's law. I haven't heard them say that God's law does not apply to the Christian.

And you are telling me that that is not antinomian? I am not trying to be uncharitable at all. Just clarifying. What you have stated is certainly not biblical nor confessional. And it is against the Law of God. Both the state and the Church are to uphold the Law of God. It demeans the importance of it in Society and suppresses it. Your conclusion is just what is dangerous for society and the Church. Antinomianism is uncharitable because it hides God's Law and His Kingship over his creation.

Our brothers who profess Two Kingdoms theology affirm the third use of the law for Christians. They do not believe the law has no use under the New Covenant which is what antinomianism is. Rather, they believe that it is not the duty of the State to enforce the moral law. There is a big difference between the two.

 

[irresistible_grace]

Two Kingdoms (WSC flavor) believe it is not the duty of the state to enforce THE FIRST TABLE OF THE LAW. That is not lawlessness/antinomianism.

[Might I add]

Two Kingdoms (Modern Reformation)
... is quick to emphasize the means of grace (preaching, sacraments, church discipline)
... helps avoid the dangers of Federal Vision, theonomy & utopian idealism
... emphasizes that the Christians that make up the invisible church can do and should do amazing things in the "Kingdom of man" but the church as visible church should be preoccupied with getting the gospel right so that the invisible church is properly equipped to be world changers for Christ!
... helps avoid turning the visible church into a Thomas Road Baptist Church that its more concerned about the Moral Majority than it is about the Triune God of Scripture & His Redemptive History (which goes back to the first emphasis about the means of grace & third emphasis about getting the gospel right)
... does an amazing job of taking seriously the already and not-yet of the kingdom
(These are just a few of the reasons why I would consider Two Kingdoms neither a false teaching nor antinomian)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Are you 100% positive. Just because the name Westminster is on the door doesn't mean they are Westminsterian. We can discuss that if you would like.

 

[irresistible_grace]

Are you 100% positive. Just because the name Westminster is on the door doesn't mean they are Westminsterian. We can discuss that if you would like.

I am not 100% positive about anything other than the fact that I am a wretched sinner who deserves eternal damnation but by the grace of God and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit I was given faith to believe in Christ alone for my salvation and His righteousness has been imputed to me apart from which I would not be justified and would get what I deserve (that is death & hell forever).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Two Kingdoms (WSC flavor) believe it is not the duty of the state to enforce THE FIRST TABLE OF THE LAW. That is not lawlessness/antinomianism.




[Might I add]




Two Kingdoms (Modern Reformation)
... is quick to emphasize the means of grace (preaching, sacraments, church discipline)
... helps avoid the dangers of Federal Vision, theonomy & utopian idealism
... emphasizes that the Christians that make up the invisible church can do and should do amazing things in the "Kingdom of man" but the church as visible church should be preoccupied with getting the gospel right so that the invisible church is properly equipped to be world changers for Christ!
... helps avoid turning the visible church into a Thomas Road Baptist Church that its more concerned about the Moral Majority than it is about the Triune God of Scripture & His Redemptive History (which goes back to the first emphasis about the means of grace & third emphasis about getting the gospel right)
... does an amazing job of taking seriously the already and not-yet of the kingdom
(These are just a few of the reasons why I would consider Two Kingdoms neither a false teaching nor antinomian)

Are you 100% positive. Just because the name Westminster is on the door doesn't mean they are Westminsterian. We can discuss that if you would like.

I am not 100% positive about anything other than the fact that I am a wretched sinner who deserves eternal damnation but by the grace of God and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit I was given faith to believe in Christ alone for my salvation and His righteousness has been imputed to me apart from which I would not be justified and would get what I deserve (that is death & hell forever).

I am glad you have the assurance you have based upon the scriptures. That is most wonderful. But I am going to touch on some celebrities here so please don't be offended. It isn't about them as much as it is about what they are teaching. And I am not 100% sure either but I do have more conviction about being correct on these matters in the last few years of my life.


First off, I agree with what you state when you write Two Kingdom Modern Reformation. It is Modern.

1. One must first have a decent definition of grace in order to understand what it does and what happens by its means. I have questioned a lot of Modern Grace Theology. It lacks much.


2. I have seen some Modern Reformed Thought's views concerning the Mosaic Covenant lead people to search for a better understanding. I would say that Klineanism or MRT has lead some to question and find other alternatives as a pendulum swings. That is a shame. Seeing problems with the theology they went to the wrong place to find solutions and ended up with Theonomy and other things like Monocovenantalism. Their dichotomizing law and grace so poorly and not just showing the biblical distinctions has led many to flee from one end of the spectrum to the other. In fact that is kind of what Dr. Richard Phillips stated when he noted how corrections swing from extreme to extreme. Which kind of leads to the next point....


3. They aren't getting the gospel right in my estimation. (What is the Gospel?) Depraved Christianity might be Antinomian Christianity pt. 3 « RPCNA Covenanter

Horton notes…


The term “gospel” is a very precise term, a particular kind of word, or kind of speech in the Bible. It refers to God’s promise of salvation in Christ. The gospel is a victory announcement. It never tells us something to do. That is the business of the law. Rather, the gospel tells us something that has been done.


Consequently, those who speak of living the gospel or doing the gospel commit a category mistake. More importantly, they make the most basic theological mistake a person could make, namely, confuse the law and the gospel. And if we confuse the law and the gospel, then we will make ourselves partly your own saviors, adding to the work of Christ.
Is Horton Correct? …. As a Pastor aquaintance has noted….


The most serious problem is that Horton’s indictment is based upon a shaky foundation. Horton’s critique is predicated upon his narrow and strict definition of the term “gospel.” But is that the only way the Bible uses or defines the term “gospel”? The answer is no! Romans 2:16 connects the future judgment with the gospel and 2 Thess. 1:8 and 1 Pet. 4:17 both speak of obeying the gospel. The gospel is to be obeyed. But how do you obey a victory announcement? How do you obey what God has done? So either the Bible itself confuses law and gospel or it uses the word “gospel” differently (at times) than Horton. Since the latter must be true, then Horton shouldn’t make the strict definition of the gospel, the one and only definition of the gospel. And he most certainly shouldn’t make any charges of legalism towards those who use a broader yet biblical definition of the gospel.


Fyi, the note on 2 Thess. 1:8 in the Reformation Study Bible is as follows:


§ 1:8 obey the gospel. The gospel must be accepted, believed, and obeyed (1 Pet. 4:17). Its divine command is for absolute surrender to God through the peace made by Jesus Christ.

4. Is just a strawman argument. Sure people get off balance but the point that a non Confessional unbalanced Anabaptist Church got all messed up is no surprise. It was just a Church seeing a problem and probably finding carnal remedies to the problem. I don't know enough about it. Do you know much about what happened at Liberty Baptist Church and if they ever became something that was truly a bad thing? I have been around a while. I am seeing more Damage by subtle denial of God's authority than I was from Liberty Baptist.


5. I am not sure that they do that great of a job realizing the Kingdom of God as a now and not yet. In fact the now thing is removing his authority from where it belongs in the civil realm. They seek to have a law without a foundation in the civil realm. The second table of the decalogue makes no sense without the first. They are divorcing God from Society and are making a big mistake.

 

[cmartin]

Thanks everyone for some really interesting and insightful inputs so far. You have brought some issues to my attention of which I was previously unaware. Thanks again!