Chapter Seven ------------------------------------------------------ Feedback Box:

"Hereticks are the ones who start denominations over doctrines!"

Christians today, especially Protestants, act as if "Denominations" must be one of the Books of the Bible. They act as if a hair trigger for spotting "false doctrines", which require separation of entire groups of believers from one another, is one of the Fruits of the Spirit. But perpetuating denominations is what a "heretick" does, according to the Greek definition of the word. This age, by contrast, defines "heretic" as someone with really, really unacceptable doctrines, whom we must speedily excommunicate.

At least the present age changed the spelling, too, along with the definition. To reduce confusion, we will use the modern spelling, "heretic", when thinking of the modern definition, (someone with excessively imperfect doctrines), and the KJV spelling, "heretick", to refer to God's definition (someone who divides Christians).

The "hereticks" we are supposed to "separate" from are the "hereticks" who separate from "heretics" because of their "heresies".

"ONE WHO PERPETUATES DENOMINATIONS" IS GOD'S DEFINITION OF "HERETICK"

Nowhere in the Bible will you find words like "Methodist", "Episcopalian", "Catholic", or even the word "Denomination". There is another Bible word which is defined the same as "denomination": "divisions". But the Bible doesn't praise people who start them. In fact, the Bible says that anyone who causes them should be "avoided"!

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid [Gr: "shun"] them.

Isn't a church split a pretty serious division? And isn't a denomination the grandaddy of all divisions? Doesn't this verse tell us to shun those who cause such divisions?

And yet, this verse is popularly quoted to justify causing new denominations! To justify splitting churches and keeping them split! The founders of entire denominations are hardly shunned! They are modern day heroes!

[Not that many founders of denominations shouldn't be regarded as heroes of the faith. Many of them had no more intent to start a denomination than Paul did, 1 Corinthians 1-4 (See chapter 8). But they are venerated, today, for "founding" the very divisions which grew despite their best efforts. (See Appendix, "Example: Luther Was Not Divisive")]

Preachers today even claim support for their praise of founders of denominations in this very verse which condemns denominations!

How is this possible?

By making a case that a "false doctrine" is an "offense", which causes "divisions". Thus "false doctrines" is substituted for "divisions and offenses", giving us the translation, in effect, "mark them which PREACH FALSE DOCTRINES contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Thus we conclude that Paul meant to split a church, rather than remain in communication and fellowship with those who teach the Fundamentals of Faith imperfectly. We must not worship with people who teach "false doctrines".

Such interpretation is actually fairly sound logic, until we notice that divisions of Christians within a city are absolutely contrary to the doctrine which the Romans had learned! And until we notice that Romans 14 lists some of the greatest doctrinal disputes that divide Christians to this day, and yet Paul said the only thing to worry about was that we not use doctrinal differences to put "offenses" in the way of our brothers! (Romans 14 is analyzed verse by verse in Chapter 13.)

With this context, we must read Romans 16:17 as:

Mark them which cause divisions [church splits] and offenses [obstacles on the path to Heaven] contrary to the doctrine [Romans 14 portrays judging others, for honest theological disagreements, as a burden to those "weak in the faith"] which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Nee, page 89: "Some believe that baptism is by immersion; others, that [it] is by sprinkling. Some believe that supernatural manifestations [like "tongues"] are a necessary accompaniment to [evidence of] the baptism in the Holy Spirit, while others do not. None of these doctrinal views constitute a scriptural basis for separating the children of God. God does not sanction any division on account of difference as to such beliefs. If a group of believers split off from a local church in their zeal for certain teaching according to the Word of God, the new 'church' they establish may have more scriptural teaching, but it could never be a scriptural church. To bring error into a church is carnal, but to divide a church on account of error may also be carnal. It is carnality that so often destroys the oneness of the church in any place." ("The Normal Christian Church Life", by Watchman Nee, published 1980 by Living Stream Ministry)

HERETICKS. Another verse condemning church splits, which is actually quoted to justify church splits, is Titus 3:8-11.

Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

How is this verse made to justify church splits?

By defining "heretic", verse 10, the opposite of the way Paul understood it.

Today we define "heretic" as someone who believes a really, really wrong intellectual concept/doctrine. In other words, as a follower of false doctrines.

This definition makes verse 10 say we are supposed to "reject" anyone who believes a "false doctrine". We are supposed to separate ourselves from others on the basis of their intellectual concepts.

But when Paul used the Greek word "hairetikos", it meant "schismatic, factious".

Heretick: Dictionaries Speak

Logos' computer lexicon defines the Greek word "hairetikos" as "schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine". Notice the three phrases are separated by commas instead of semicolons, which means they are all part of a single definition, instead of being three alternative definitions. As if one thing that makes a doctrine false is whether it is "schismatic" or "factious".

The more thorough "Arndt-Gingrich" lexicon says "factious, causing divisions (perhaps) heretical". Notice how this definition says "hairetikos" definitely means "factious, causing divisions", but only "perhaps" means "heretical". As if there is a difference between "factious, causing divisions" and "heretical". And yet "heretic" is the word in the KJV, even though Arndt-Gingrich says that is the least likely definition. Of course there is a difference between the two choices, as "heretic" is defined today.

But it was not always defined that way. Webster's original dictionary says of "heresy": "...The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of Christians may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage, heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach...."

Notice Webster's acknowledgment that the definition of "heresy" has changed from Bible times to his own time. Notice also how Webster equated "heresy" with "denomination", as modern Greek lexicons suggest. He said when we, today, speak of one's denomination, we "imply no reproach". But of course when Titus 3:10 speaks of a "heretick", there is reproach, and warning. Webster had no Greek lexicons to work from, but he was fluent enough in New Testament Greek to have written one as easily as he wrote his English dictionary.

"One who creates or fosters factions" is the straightforward definition of "hairetikos" in "The Analytical Greek Lexicon" by Zondervan.

In other words, "Hereticks", as defined by Greek dictionaries, means folks who use doctrinal imperfection as an excuse to split churches.

(Remember, we are using the KJV spelling, "hereticks", to distinguish the word, as defined by Greek dictionaries, from the word as popularly defined, which we indicate with the popular spelling "heretics".)

"Hereticks" are folks so impatient with milk lovers in some theological area that they shut the door of communication upon them while shouting "Heretics!"

"Hereticks" are loveless parents who punish the baby, milk-drinking "heretics", who are having trouble getting used to the taste of meat, by impatiently casting them outside where they will receive neither milk nor meat!

A Heretick is "subverted", the word we saw in 2 Timothy 2:14 which means "overthrow, destruction of cities, metaphorically of the extinction of a spirit of consecration".

In other words, denominationalists have little respect for others. They are passionate about their precious Doctrines, rather than loving precious, beloved people.

They have no reverence for access to the Body of Christ, by all in whom is the Spirit of Christ, Romans 8:9.

In other words, this passage says that when we encounter a Heretic Hunter who insists upon doctrines which erect and/or maintain walls between Christians, then we should excommunicate him, because this is the sort of man which the Bible defines as a "heretick"!

Oops, wait a minute. The Bible didn't say to excommunicate him, did it? The word isn't even in the Bible. This verse says to "reject" him, which is a milder word than "excommunicate" has come to mean. It is less final. It does not mean loss of "church membership", since "membership" is not for humans to grant, but only for humans to discern. (More about that in chapter 11.)

Not even the classic excommunication passage, Matthew 18:15-17, to which the current passage alludes by the phrase "first and second admonition", authorizes us to push people all the way out of our lives. It only says to treat them like a foreign tax collector.

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

And how should we treat such men? Shall we erect walls to separate us from them designed never to be removed again? Shall we rope off those we "don't agree with", and then, safely and permanently separated, rush off to discern the next group we "don't agree with"? Is there no hope or thought of reconciliation?

Let us ask Matthew how to treat a "heretick", whom we are to treat as a "publican". Matthew gave us this passage, and Matthew was a publican! (Matthew 9:9) As Jesus uttered the hated word "publican", in 18:17, did His eyes meet Matthew's? Was there a smile of irony from Jesus? Was their another barb of humiliation for Matthew, soothed by the salve of mercy? Did tears of gratitude roll down Matthew's face as he saw that this most severe punishment for Christians would be no greater than what he had received, after which he had been not merely converted, forgiven, and reconciled, but made One of the Twelve?

Another point to ponder, for we who exclude myriad Christians for their "false doctrines" without a word of interaction with them, is that this passage authorizes "rejection", in even the worst cases of "heresy" (denominationalism), only after meeting privately with the accused, and then after taking a few witnesses with you to meet with him. You -- yes, you -- have surely shut a great many individuals, and entire groups, out of your spiritual life for believing what you considered "heresies". How much interaction did you have with them, before slamming the spiritual door? Did you witness to them? Were you noble, like the Bereans, offering them a chance to defend themselves, and searching the Scriptures daily to test each doctrine you rejected? Did you even give them a chance to tell you what they believed, and what Scriptures supported their beliefs, or did you get your understanding of their beliefs from their enemies?

Did you show love, and longing for fellowship on the Foundation of God's Word? Or did you just read a cartoon booklet distributed by their enemies, about the outrageous things they believe, and resolve never to associate with them or even get their view of the cartoons?

Even if two denominations had once exhausted the Matthew 18:15-17 reconciliation procedure, many generations ago, how does that relieve each succeeding generation of the duty to exhaust that same procedure? Yet do we see any reconciliation efforts at all between any two denominations? We see more and more splits.

Not that we should want all the worldwide denominational hierarchies to combine into one megachurch. That is what Antichrist is waiting for: a top-down, international, comprehensive organization which he can step to the head of. God ordained local churches. Not coalitions of churches crossing city boundaries. And even within a city, we don't want any more "laymen", than we already have, required to listen to one man do all the talking. God wants one single fellowship per city, or per area, in which all "preach", and double check each other. That isn't anything Antichrist could manipulate!

But even within any single city, have you ever in your life heard of one time when two congregations of Christians, separated by their doctrines, searched the Scriptures together, perhaps through their representatives, in the hope of reconciliation? There should not be one time when divided congregations, within cities, are not pursuing reconciliation!

Not that intellectual agreement about doctrines is even a Biblical condition of fellowship, as if congregations divided by their doctrines should even need to resolve their intellectual differences before they can fellowship together! One of the functions of fellowship is to hammer out differences through Bible study, as the Bereans did!

Haven't you ever wondered why it is the women who stereotypically drag their men to church -- why men stereotypically are more likely to find "church" boring, and have to work harder to stay awake? While women find church entirely comfortable and are more likely to find the thought of a group discussion frightening? Have you ever wondered why you hear stories of women poking men as they start to snore in church, and not vice versa?

When the only people you will let in the room are people who agree with you, men don't exactly find that very stimulating. Give a man a challenge, even a battle, and he will rise to it and even thank God for it and pray for the courage to march "like a man". And if you don't hold him back too much, he will win the battle, meet the challenge, solve the problem, resolve the crisis.

Women tend more to be nervous around any dispute whatsoever. Women will reluctantly allow their men to strive, but they themselves would prefer a polite, comfortable setting where the only wars are behind people's backs. That setting is exactly the blueprint for "Churches" today, which are designed for women.

Churches today are either run by women, or run by men who run it like women. It's time for men to start running church like men. Isaiah 3:12.

Appendix: LUTHER WAS NOT DIVISIVE

A good example of denominations which sprang up contrary to the intent of their founders is Martin Luther, the grandaddy of all denomination founders. Catholics still blame Martin Luther for splitting the Church, but who excommunicated whom? Luther never wanted to stop being a Catholic priest (ordained 1507), a Doctor of Bible (earned 1512).

Luther never sought notoriety in the first place. Those 95 theses he nailed to the door were merely that age's way of announcing topics for public debate. They were like taking out a TV ad, saying "Come to the Civic Auditorium next week to hear your favorite preachers debate whether your favorite Televangelists are promising too much in return for your offerings!" Luther didn't even announce his own position in those theses! He was merely announcing topics for discussion! The only reason the theses drew so much attention was that the printing press had just been invented, and several Germans who were chafing under the pope's policy on selling indulgences translated the theses from Luther's Latin into the common language, German, and spread the news far and wide.

Luther wanted to conduct a Bible Study with the pope when he was summoned by the pope to defend himself for heresy. But he still remembered the fate of John Huss, similarly summoned in 1415, even guaranteed safe passage by the pope, yet burned at the stake upon his arrival.

Luther's first trial was by his own order, the Augustinians, in April 1518. They rendered no verdict! And later, many of his judges joined him in his reform movement! Next the pope assigned one of his best theologians, Cardinal Cajetan, to deal with Luther at the diet (national assembly) of the Holy Roman Empire, meeting in Augsburg, Germany in Autumn, 1518. But if Cajetan was able to participate in a good Bible Study, he was not willing. In his first day with Luther he demanded that Luther recant all his teachings, and fully submit to the pope. Luther said he would only after being proved wrong by Scripture. Cajetan apparently didn't see the relevance of that. Luther fled town in fear that night. A miraculous balance of political pressures protected Luther from the pope's wrath. But Luther still didn't renounce Catholicism.

Next year Johann Eck challenged the entire Wittenberg University theological faculty to public debate for following Luther's ideas. The faculties of Erfurt and Paris were to judge the results. Wittenberg was represented by Luther and his senior colleague, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt.

Even in this debate, when Eck associated Luther with condemned heretic John Huss, because they both thought popes and councils could err and thus should be subject to the Word of God, Luther did what he could to affirm his position while still not associating himself with a condemned heretic, because Luther still did not want to leave the Catholic Church!

June 15, 1520, the pope gave Luther 60 days to recant. Where the pope's "bull" (decree) was publicized, Germans loyal to the pope burned Luther's books, but Germans who respected Luther burned certain papal literature! On January 3, 1521, the pope excommunicated Luther. And, in effect, all who would share Luther's convictions. Which, by that time, was a great number of Germans.

The Pope split the Church. Luther did not split the Church; nor did Luther want the church split.

Even someone who is excommunicated still has to be tried for heresy and executed, in that day's law, so in 1521 the pope ordered Luther to the Diet of Worms. No, that wasn't how the pope wanted to kill Luther. "Worms" was the name of a city, and "diet" means "national assembly".

On Luther's journey to Worms, many joined him and assured Luther of their support. On April 17, Luther was brought before the assembled leaders of the Holy Roman Empire in all their regal, earthly glory. He was asked only two questions: (1) did he admit to writing the collection of books gathered on a small table? and (2) was he willing to recant anything in them?

No defense or debate was to be permitted!

Visibly shaken, Luther admitted writing them, but he asked for time to consider his answer about recanting. He said he wanted to answer carefully and thoughtfully, since he dared not deny Christ.

On the next day, after a tongue lashing for taking so long, Luther said his writings fell into three groups: (1) simple presentations of the Gospel which even the Bull of Excommunication admitted were useful; (2) criticism of papal tyranny over Christian consciences, which Luther could not recant for fear of enabling yet more tyranny; and (3) attacks on individuals, which he admitted he may have pressed more aggressively than was fitting for one of his station.

Luther continued, "Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason, for I believe neither in the pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves, I am bound by the Scriptures which I have presented, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience." He may have added "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Was it Luther's numerous supporters? Was it the support of Luther's prince, Frederick the Wise, who shared a border with Emperor Charles V who had convened the Diet? He was not summarily executed, as were so many others! A delegation was appointed to negotiate with Luther and certain friends of his. The delegation met for a week, and failed. Was it Luther's powerful and numerous friends, combined with shaken convictions of the negotiation team, which explains why, after the negotiations failed, Luther was not condemned to be executed?

Why did Emperor Charles V tell Luther he could leave, and was guaranteed safe passage for 3 weeks? Was it because Luther's enemies knew Luther's supporters were alert to any hanky panky? Was it because, as was the case many times when the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, the Church knew if they killed Luther, other lives besides his would be lost?

Luther left Worms April 26. Only as the council closed was Charles ready to act. He condemned Luther as "an obstinate schismatic and obvious heretic", and an outlaw, and forbade anyone to support him on pain of heavy penalties. All Luther's followers were likewise condemned. But Charles had little power to enforce his edicts against the interference of fellow ruler Frederick the Wise.

Frederick the Wise arranged for a band of knights to "kidnap" Luther and spirit him away in hiding. While in hiding 9 months, Luther translated the Bible into German. He came out of hiding to help lead the reform movement for another 25 years until his death at age 63.

(Details of Luther's ministry taken from "Luther, Pastor of God's People", by Robert Kolb, published by Concordia Publishing House in 1991.)

Luther's tool of evangelism was not division. It was dialogue. Although he had more doctrinal reason to "separate himself" than any church-splitting American pastor today, he did not separate himself. He was separated by force. In other words, his idea of "separation" was not cessation of communication, but rather to distinguish his own position from errors. Luther knew the best way to distinguish your position from heresy is to articulate it, as opposed to cutting off all communication, with the barest of explanations, and leaving the world to wonder why. It was Catholics, in Luther's time, who behaved like church splitters today: condemnation without dialogue! "You're all going to hell," church splitters might as well say, "although I can't prove that, from Scripture, to you. I can only prove it to those who already agree with me; not to those who challenge me from Scripture!"

Do Luther's followers, today, indeed follow Luther? They may follow Luther's doctrines, but how about his interaction with heresy?

The division between Catholics and Lutherans, which Catholics created, Lutherans now help Catholics preserve.

No longer is there the threat of being burned at the stake for Lutherans who might try to interact with Catholics. Yet where is the desire to evangelize? To reason from the Scriptures? To restore shattered fellowships? To educate the deceived and save the lost?

Denominations, like divorce, can be caused two ways: by separating from others unnecessarily, or by making it necessary for others to separate from you. But before we too quickly declare, like immature, divorce-minded spouses, that this divorce we are filing for IS necessary, because "my husband disgusts me by mixing peas with his potatoes" (an actual Iowa case), lets limit ourselves to the justifications for divorce, or for "separation", that we find in Scripture.

Sorry, doctrinal error isn't on God's list, as this and subsequent chapters explain. Other things are, which these chapters explain. Doctrinal error isn't justification for separation, because it is correctable. It is correctable simply by following the format for church services found in 1 Corinthians 14: Bible Discussion. Obviously if you aren't going to obey that, you might as well disobey God when he prohibits denominations, too.

Chapter 8 "No Denominations, Please!"

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)