In the religious world, there is always talk about what constitutes a false teacher. For the most part, those in denominationalism are really not concerned about such things as false teachers (see more later). But in churches of Christ, there is a great deal of interest in talking about false teachers. Some of this interest is good and healthy. Alas, some of the talk is obviously language that accompanies apostasy, or falling away. You see, the subject of false teaching must be toned down in order to give false teachers free rein so they can successfully introduce and inject their false teaching.
Allow me immediately to submit to you that the subject of false teachers is indeed a Biblical matter of grave importance. I understand that most of the religious world at large deemphasizes doctrine and truth in general. More and more, churches of Christ are also heard playing down the importance of purity and the necessity of doctrine. Notwithstanding, the scriptures explicitly and irrefutably teach that sound doctrine is important. In fact, the Bible is replete with teaching, both positive and negative in nature, that relates to obligation to truth.
Man is to choose, learn, and walk in the truth (Psalm 119:30; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 John 4).
We are also required to love, speak, and handle aright the word of truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Ephesians 4:15; 2 Timothy 2:15). Moreover, the truth is to be obeyed from the heart and dwell in the Christian; also, the Christian is to be established in the truth (Romans 6:17,18; 2 John 2; Colossians 1:23). Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Regarding negation, we must not resist, err, or work against the truth (2 Timothy 3:8; James 5:19,20; Philippians 3:18). The truth is so valuable that it must not be sold, concealed, or changed in any way (Proverbs 23:23; Psalm 40:10; Romans 1:25; Galatians 1:6-9). To resist the truth is to resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7: 51-53).
Today, we are witnessing many efforts that result in false teachers being tolerated. Allow me to first suggest to you that the Bible plainly mentions false teachers: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)
We hear teaching that says the language "false teacher" (pseudodidaskaloi) does not refer to what a person teaches but to the fact that he is not sincere in his teaching and what he professes. I engaged in one exchange pertaining to a man who was teaching blatant and damnable error. I overwhelmingly documented the false teaching of certain preachers (Ed Harrell, Homer Hailey, etc.) within the church of Christ.
Those with whom I had the discussion admitted that error was taught, but they defended the teachers. The argument was that the teaching was corrupt, but the teachers' hearts and motives were pure; hence, they were not false teachers. During this process, a number conceded that I was teaching the truth on the particular issue being considered, but, hear this now, I was labeled as a false teacher because they judged my motives and heart to be impure!
How about the term "false teacher." Does it depend at all on the nature of what is being taught? The growing argument is that false (pseudo, adjective) simply modifies teacher (didaskaloi, noun), the one teaching. Hence, no charge of inaccuracy is levied against what is taught; the charge is that the teacher is an impostor, or insincere. Jeff Smelser (a gospel preacher) recently (April 2000, see Addendum) had material published in Focus Magazine. He taught: "False brethren, false apostles, and false Christs belong in the 'false teacher' category, for they clearly are impostors. . . ." Here, then, is teaching denying that the term "false teacher" identifies, at least in part, the man who teaches the error.
In one exchange I had during 1999, the affirmation was, "What I am saying is that the false teacher is not identified by his false doctrine, but by his false character." (Wallace Little, Mar's List, an Internet discussion list, September 10, digest 928) Little went on to teach, in referring to a book, Who Is My Brother, by F. LaGard Smith, the following, "He writes, and I endorse wholly, that the adjective 'false' refers to the person, not to the teaching. A false teacher is one who is, as a person, false. He may or may not be teaching error." (Mar's List, September 6, digest 919) On a higher level of gradation, Little stated " . . .labeling him a false teacher because of his false teaching is not proper. (dm, Mar's List, September 10, 928) Preacher Little showed his lack of respect for, and interest in, truth when he taught, "Since when is 'damnable teaching' a sin? And who determines what 'damnable teaching' is damnable?" (Mar's List, September 6, digest 919)
How can the phraseology "false teacher" not include what the teacher is teaching? What does a teacher do, and why would he be distinguished as a teacher, unless emphasis is placed on what he teaches? Thus, the phrase has to do with "false witnesses" (pseudomartus, 1 Corinthians 15:15). The witness may have a false nature, but it's certain that his testimony is false! Both the false teacher and the false witness are specific people. However, the nouns "teacher" and "witness" necessarily involve what the teacher and the witness, as people, are doing: they are teaching and witnessing.
Some Biblical facts that relate to teachers. The Scriptures reveal that one may sincerely preach the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). He may teach error, but have a good heart and good motives (cp. Acts 18:24-28; 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 23:1). He may also may teach the truth, but have impure motives (Philippians 1:15,18). Another recognized scenario is that one may teach error with the intent to deceive (2 Peter 2:3,10,12,14,15,18,19). The tangible and static feature in each of these scenarios is the teaching. It may be truth or error, but this can easily be determined (Acts 17: 11).
The teacher's heart and motives; however, cannot be determined, unless he obviously lives a corrupt life or bears corrupt fruit.
The term "false teachers" is used in the context of deliberate deceit. It is true that the Bible uses the expression in such a setting, "... who privily shall bring in damnable heresies..." (2 Peter 2:1) However, if one, because of this passage, insists that a false teacher is always willfully deceitful, is he not also guilty of all the other characteristics mentioned in the text? Peter went on to describe the particular false teachers under consideration as being covetous (vs. 3), unclean, despisers of government, self-willed, and speaking evil of dignities (vs. 10). Moreover, they counted it pleasure to "riot in the day time" and "have eyes full of adultery" (vs. 13). If deliberate deceit must be proven before one can be designated as a false teacher, why aren't all these additional traits also required? In fact, if we use this rationale, all of these characteristics must be present, and shown to be in place, before one can be labeled as a false teacher.
Beloved, the truth of the matter is that most false teachers do have "corrupt natures." Kittel defines "false teachers" as follows:
"Pseudodaskalos, this is never found outside Christian usage...The pseudo suggests both that the claim of the man concerned is false, and also that his teaching is erroneous, so that in every respect, he is a perversion of the Christian didaskalos, since he rejects Jesus' claim to dominion over his whole life...(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, pg. 160).
Intelligent reader, you have probably observed that Kittel's work (considered the ultimate) states two things. It refers to the teacher's "false nature" and involves his teaching, which is also false.
I concede that, in the context of 2 Peter 2, the false teacher is described as teaching "damnable heresies" and as having a false nature. My point is that we can identify a false teacher by his teaching, without having to be personally and intimately acquainted with his private life. I concur that most false teachers are corrupt. I also believe a man ceases to be honestly mistaken about fallacious teaching when he is confronted and challenged, but adamantly refuses even to study the matter (consider Apollos, Acts 18:24-28).
The cry of some brethren that brother...teaches error, but that he is not a false teacher, is ridiculous. In the specific cases with which I am familiar, the brethren in question have both consistently and persistently taught damnable error over a period of years. Yet, some among us continue to claim we cannot refer to such men as false teachers.
The bottom line is: I can know what a man is teaching (objective). Moreover, I am obligated to know his teaching, if I intend to fellowship him (2 John 9-11). However, knowing the sincerity of a man's heart is a different matter (subjective). It is ridiculous to think we must avoid labeling a man as a false teacher (based on his false teaching) until we have proof he is covetous, has eyes full of adultery, etc. However, this is what we continue to hear. (It is important to note "false prophets," the model for "false teachers" in 2 Peter 2:1. Not only were "false prophets" (pseudoprophetes) characterized by their insincerity, but they also taught what was false, or prophesied lies (cp Jeremiah 23:25-36).
The requisite posture toward false teachers. How must we view and treat a man who persists in teaching "damnable heresy?"
"Whosoever trangresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 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." (2 John 9-11) Beloved, the doctrine of Christ (didache tou christou) involves more than simply, and only, the deity of Jesus (notice "commandments," in verse 6 and "heresies," 2 Peter 2:1, plural).
In closing, let us all respect and love the truth and those who loyally teach it (1 Peter 4:11). However, we must mark and note those who teach false doctrine (Romans 6:17). If we would all develop scriptural attitudes toward false teaching, teachers of error would no longer experience the success and acclaim that they too often enjoy in the religious world, and even in the Lord's church (1 John 2:19, 4:1; 2 Peter 2:1).
Addendum: Jeff Smelser admittedly presents a relatively more conservative view regarding false teachers being impostors. He admits that such impostors usually teach false doctrine. In the same issue of Focus Magazine (April 2000), we find articles by Ed Harrell and Paul Earnhart. Both Harrell and Earnhart have defended a false teacher (the late Homer Hailey) and been actively/passively, respectively, involved in advancing the false doctrine that a man can, over time, teach damnable error and still should not be called a false teacher. It is also very interesting that the theme of the April issue of Focus Magazine is "The Art of Preaching."
Brother Martin addresses a subject that has undergone a lot of discussion during the past few years. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the teacher's "motive" is even an issue! None of us can read a man's heart. If a man teaches error, on a doctrinal issue, then he is a "false teacher" on that issue! How can we explain that away? Sadly. I'm afraid many brethren have allowed friendship to override scriptural judgment. Truth is truth, and error is error-no matter who--friend or enemy--teaches it! (KMG)