What are the marks of a heresy? What are the danger signals?
Where do we draw the line between what's sound (or passable)
Biblical theology and what's outright heretical false doctrine?
Just knowing the simple basics of exactly where that line is drawn
can save a lot of worry, as well as help us to avoid unjust
accusation and mistrust that prevents unity in the Body of Messiah
. . . and possibly save us from veering offcourse into false doctrine ourselves
the rest of this file should finish loading shortly...
How to Spot a Heresy
by baruch
This article is designed to be interactive, via a comment machine made available by Enetation.co.uk. Feel free to leave a comment or an argument via the link at the end of each section.
Picture yourself, just for a moment, as a six-year-old wandering around in a place that is at the same time a sweet shop and a chemist shop, and someone forgot to properly label the merchandise. You are alone -- except for a few "experts". You go for the mint drops only to be told they are really antacid medicine. You try the chocolate, but it turns out to be a type of laxative. On your way back from the toilets, a wide eyed "expert" shows you some "really cool stuff" and tries to push something which is probably valium, or amphetamines onto you. You have a funny feeling about him and manage to break away. Finally you find where the genuine candy is located only to find yet another "expert", a rather stern faced one this time, constantly telling you things like, "Not that, it's bad for your teeth...that one has absolutely no nutritional value. Here, I'll take you to the vitamin supplements."
For many, this is all too real. The world of Christian movements, sects and fads is like a shop where it's often hard to tell the candy from the dangerous drugs and the helpful and nutritious vitamins. On one side are the cults and fringe groups that could leave you wounded and lost. On the other side are the cult watchers and whistle blowers, ever ready to pounce on anything that appears to be less than sound doctrine -- or not quite according to their particular doctrine. In the middle is the unlikely assortment of sweets, food supplements and other things, among which the bulk of Christendom wanders like children looking for candy.
This article is targeted to all three, but especially to those who are in the middle, wondering what's what -- or perhaps should be wondering what's what -- and confused and intimidated by all the potential errors and the different ways one could go off course. Some are paralysed by the fear that by taking the wrong step, they will have crossed the line into heresy.
It is good to be concerned, but fear that paralyses isn't a good thing. The solution to this is much simpler than one would think: the more clearly we can see the line, the less we need fear crossing it. That is a very important point -- you could say, the only main point of this article, but it will take this whole article explain it. Simplified, it involves focusing on the Person and work of Messiah Yeshua (Or Jesus... I call him "Yeshua" because that's how you say His name in His native language -- I hope that doesn't make me a heretic...?)
This is also a call to the far right -- to the cult watchers, heresy hunters and whistle blowers. Your calling reflects a godly concern for the defence of truth and a compassion for those wandering about from one high place to another but never finding rest, unless it's to find oneself trapped in a spiritual prison somewhere. I was a pupil of the grandfather of cult watchers, Dr. Walter Martin. I took two of his courses at Melodyland School Of Theology, as well as attended his weekly Bible class for a period, so I know the heart of the cult watcher. Through the course of this discussion I hope the message is understood that you are doing an important work, but to please regard your relationship with your brothers and sisters in Messiah (including those whom you may have possibly misunderstood) as dear as the truth that binds us together in Him. For your sakes, and because it is a sensitive subject, I am laying out here what I intend to cover in this discussion, so no one will be in for any nasty surprises.
This is also a call to those on the far left -- or those who could be in danger of wandering away from the basic truths of Messiah either intentionally or through neglect. No matter how based in truth a teaching or doctrinal distinctive is, it can lead to heresy if it causes us to lose our focus on Yeshua. On the other side of the coin, if you only knew how much power and potential there is in the Person and work of Messiah, you wouldn't want to look elsewhere.
The direction this discussion will take will be first to explore the difference between heresy and error. For some, that should clear up some confusion.
After that, we'll look at the major tests found in the New Testament: two for testing the spirits, and then the "fruit" test. The spirit tests are found in I Corinthians 12:3, and I John 4:1-3. They are actually presented as ways to test the spirits because the factor that leads to heresy is the "spirit of error". The fact is, all the major cults fail both of these tests in their stated theology, but we'll also note how the test might return a danger signal in ways that are not so obvious -- that is, if one isn't clear where the line is drawn.
But the theological test is only a part. We'll also talk briefly about fruit, then, a closely related issue, the literal meaning of the word "heretic", one who divides. That should also tell us quite a lot. No matter how effective, or how close to the cutting edge of spiritual power and Biblical accuracy, if a person or group is more interested in their own agenda than in their relationship with the rest of Messiah's body, they are at least in danger of slipping into that category. This is related to the tests of I John and I Corinthians, because focusing on the Person and work of Messiah will naturally bear the fruit of love for His Body as well. The same spirit of error, though it begins in one area, will eventually affect the other, as well as give less than desirable fruit along the way.
Finally, we'll look at how not to spot a heresy.
But before we begin, lets pause for one final question: "Who on earth is this "Baruch" bloke, and what is he trying to sell us?"
Apart from a few novels I would like to sell to a publisher, my main interest is seeing reconciliation between estranged members of the family. If you must know more than that, read my spiritual autobiography, a shorter article than this one entitled, My Journey.
The Difference Between Heresy and Error
Before we begin to discuss exactly how to spot a heresy, we need to clear up one question: is heresy and error one and the same?
Lets just consider that a minute (if this seems a bit infantile, please bear with me. We do need to make a point). If it were the same, that would mean that any amount of error would make us a heretic. To not be a heretic, one would need to be 100% correct on every doctrine.
Now, consider again. Can you name any two denominations with exactly the same beliefs? Think what that means. If heresy and error are one and the same, that means there is, at best, only one group in the world that isn't a heresy.
Face it. A claim of 100% accuracy is a bit much to assume, especially when it puts you at such a vast minority.
What about basing a claim on the degree of error? That could be a move in the right direction.
For instance, lets look at the "once-saved-always-saved" vs. "you can lose your salvation if you back slide" controversy. Obviously only one side can be correct, and I suppose the side that isn't could constitute at least a medium size error. Is that big enough to be a heresy?
But think again. Bible scholars who all love God, and love his truth, and have the spiritual welfare of their fellow believers as their prime motive, have been arguing both sides of the issue for hundreds of years, and still haven't convinced one another. On both sides you will hear the statement, "But the Bible clearly says, 'blah blah blah'."
Is it fair to hold one side or another as a heresy over this issue?
If the claim of heresy is based on size, where do we draw the line as to how big? I have a deep down feeling that when it comes to the judgement, we'll find that we were no better at comprehending truth than the six blind men and the elephant, and all of our accusations of heresy based on degree of error amounted to the pot calling the kettle "black".
It's not the degree of truth or error that makes or breaks us in the end, just as it isn't by our own righteousness or the degree of sin that saves or damns us, but His saving grace.
That brings us to the other possible solution: how about basing our criteria regarding heresy only on the most important points of doctrine -- the ones, in fact, that qualify us for forgiveness from error?
That's exactly what I propose to do, especially as numerous Bible passages, which we will look at below point in that direction.
Discerning the Important Points of Faith
In the New Testament, we find two passages that are specifically about testing the spirit of a possible heretic. They both pose a question -- a different question in each case, but both have to do with the Person and work of Messiah. Lets look at these:
Paul's approach
In Paul's day, no one had thought of starting up a cult of their own. Even the so-called Judaisers weren't really a cult in that sense. They were more likely a part of the mainstream of the early Messianic Jewish movement who were slower on the uptake in regard to the new things that were happening though Peter and Paul. If anything, judging by Acts 21:20,21, they probably thought Paul was trying to start something, which certainly wasn't the case. We’ll talk more about that later.
What Paul did have to deal with, as we see in his epistle to the Corinthians, were either the local occultists trying to cash in on the new Messianic movement in Corinth, or some of the new believers who weren't completely delivered from their past bondage. Whatever it was, was showing up during worship times, passing itself off as prophetic utterance or some ecstatic experience or other. I suppose that the tendency among the local believers was to treat any prophetic or ecstatic experience as a holy thing, perhaps above criticism, if not too subjective to analyse anyway.
Paul's instruction to them in I Corinthians 12:3 was, however holy, subjective or spooky, take note of what was being said. If the message is, "Messiah Yeshua is Lord", it's of the Holy Spirit. If they're saying "Yeshua is cursed," it's most certainly not!
In this context, where one is dealing with someone in a trance, or suspected demon possession, the words, "Yeshua (or Jesus) is Lord" or something to that effect, could be a good sign. However, if we want to take it any further and apply the same test to someones ministry, or to a suspected cult, we would have to look a bit deeper. Even in the case of a prophecy, just the three words "Yeshua (or Jesus) is Lord" probably won't tell us very much. Does the prophetic utterance encourage one to focus on Yeshua? In the case of the persons ministry, does the teaching emphasises His Lordship? Do those sitting under the teaching show the Lordship of Messiah in their everyday lives? Does the teacher provide a good example of it by his own life?
The last two might not be fair questions, as many mainstream churches -- those recognised by the majority as not being heretical -- fail on those two points. Even those groups that think they have an extra edge are failing. On the other hand, maybe that shows us yet another example of the kettle calling the pot "black". Maybe it shows us that the search begins at home!
Whatever the case, the Lordship of Yeshua has a wide application. In Romans 10:9,10, we see it applied to salvation -- the confession of Yeshua as Lord and belief in the heart in His resurrection. On one hand, this appears on the surface to be a purely theological statement to be believed and confessed for salvation. But don't forget the challenge of James 2:19, even the demons believe, and tremble. I'm sure a few could manage to verbalise the phrase "Jesus is Lord" if they thought it would get them somewhere.
I believe it's much more than just a theological affirmation of Yeshua's deity. "Lord" in this context means a number of things. It not only denotes deity, but it's also the same as saying "He is my Lord (or my Supreme Boss), therefore, I henceforth choose to obey Him." In that statement, we can also recognise the doctrine of repentance: "I am no longer my own lord, or boss, satan is no longer my boss, sin is no longer my pastime; I submit everything to Yeshua, as Supreme Lord of all."
Lets see if any demons can say that!
The other part of the affirmation is belief in the heart in His resurrection. We'll look at that as a part of John's test for Gnostic heresy.
Apostle John's day John was the last of the twelve original apostles to leave the scene. Novel ideas from Greek and Eastern mysticism were just beginning to have an influence that would soon give birth to the Gnostic heresies.
Gnosticism sees the spiritual world as being good and superior in every way to the physical world. The physical world, as viewed by Gnosticism, is the ultimate source of evil. I'm sure many will readily recognise this concept as being Hindu or Buddhist. It is also the basic idea behind Christian Science and a few other kindred quasi-christian religions.
Here we can already see a major difference between Gnosticism and Biblical revelation. The Torah, particularly the first three chapters of Genesis shows us that the physical world was created in a perfect state, but it became less than perfect through man's rebellion. However, it still didn't become the ultimate evil. The concept, or the tendency to rebel against God is the ultimate evil. The father or the discoverer of evil (I suppose "patron saint" isn't the right word) is a being we often refer to as "satan", which is a Hebrew word for "enemy", or "opposer". It's a generic word which, in Hebrew, is simply referred to as "the satan", so there's no need to use caps. Even satan isn't the ultimate evil, as much as he tries to be. Man is quite capable of evil without his help, but satan uses man's tendency towards evil as an entry point for control. As expert as satan is on evil, God is infinitely more capable of turning that evil around for good. Thus, in practical terms satan is hardly more than a tool in the hands of God (that's not to be misunderstood as saying God initiates all the evil that satan does). Man's carnal nature is the far greater challenge.
Gnosticism, because it sees the physical world as the ultimate evil, can't fathom how a righteous God could possibly create a physical world. Some early Gnostics thus claimed that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as that of the New Testament. One of the earliest Gnostics, Marcion, rejected the whole Old Testament. A bit of this attitude is emulated in some Christian circles today, some treating the Old Testament as being far less important than the New, and viewing God as though He underwent a personality change somewhere between the Testaments.
In John's day, all of the above hadn't fully developed yet. When they said, "the Bible," they still meant what we know of today as the Old Testament.
The Gnostic tendency in John's time was the temptation to think of Yeshua as not fully human, or, not fully inhabiting a physical body. The physical, you remember, was evil, so how, they asked, could a perfect person be confined to a physical body?
We know, from studying the Bible, that it was necessary for Yeshua to be born and live in a physical body, because among other things, He had to give himself as an atonement by offering it as a sacrifice, which meant dying physically. That, of course, He had to do as a human. That, again, wasn't complete until He also rose from the dead in a physical human body. As perfect and omnopitant as He is, He still dwells in a human body, albeit a supernatural one like we will also have at the resurrection. I Corinthians 15 goes into detail on that.
We also realise the importance of this when we look at the second half of Paul's proclamation of Romans 10:9&10, which we looked at earlier: belief in the heart that God has raised Him from the dead.
We can readily see the Gnostic errors in just about every major cult in some shape or form, even in those that are not obviously Gnostic in their philosophy. Jehova's Witnesses, for instance, believe Yeshua didn't rise from the dead in a physical body, but only had a spiritual one, rather like an angel. They also fail Paul's test by not accepting Yeshua's deity. Other quasi-christian groups, like the Mormons, and Christian Science, fail in similar ways.
How full blown the Gnostic heresy was in John's day is hard to say. At least, it's apparent he saw it coming, and recommended a test, which can also be used in pinpointing the errors of all the above mentioned quasi-christian groups. That was to simply answer the question, 'Did Yeshua come in the flesh? (I John 4:1-3)'
Taking everything else into consideration that we've discussed, I think we can safely say that "coming in the flesh" or "coming in bodily (or human) form" (as some translations say it) can be applied not only to His physical birth and the nature of His life on earth, but also His death and resurrection as well.
On the surface, the emphasis here seems to be on the theology. That would be so on one level, especially in regard to obvious cults, but we also need to look beyond that for two reasons: First, because our Christian experience goes far beyond knowing what's what theologically. Remember again, the demons know what's what, and tremble. Secondly, the wording of John's instruction states that it is the spirit that must be tested. One can accept a dry theology and fail to apply it in ones life. It's called "having a form of godliness but denying the power" (II Timothy 3:5). I'm afraid that this could be true of more of us than we would care to categorise as heretics.
Another consideration is, it's possible for a person or group to pay lip service to basic doctrines, but to emphasise their own distinctive doctrine so much that it eclipses the fundamental truths that distinguish us all as being in Messiah.
In his letter to Timothy, Paul expressed this concern, and instructed him on how to deal with questions about minor points as well as warned him about those who would use such questions to breed strife. The latter is also an important consideration, which we'll get into as we discuss the literal meaning of the word "heresy".
Applying the test to the Judaisers In his letter to the Galatians, Paul expressed concern about the integrity of the presentation of the gospel, and came down strongly on those who minimised the power of the cross, as in the case of the Judaisers. As we noted earlier, the Judaisers weren't a separate cult per se, but a part of the mainstream of the Messianic movement who were slow to accept the truth that gentiles could become first class members in Messiah without having to be initiated into Judaism or taught to follow the Jewish Law. Today, we have the opposite problem. Many of today's mainstream Christian believers find it hard to accept Jewish believers in Messiah who choose to remain Torah observant.
The issue then was understanding the power of Yeshua's sacrifice in thoroughly saving the gentiles and making them one with the Jewish believers in the Body of Messiah. Circumcision, Sabbath observance and a kosher diet won't save anyone, or make anyone any more in Messiah than will Sunday observance, saying grace before a meal, Protestant liturgy, or even refusal to follow the Jewish Law. Apostles Peter and Paul both kept a kosher diet (when not engaging in fellowship with their gentile brothers and sisters), followed Jewish worship patterns, even worshipping at the Temple (which Peter and John were on their way to doing when they healed the beggar in Acts 3), and making certain Temple sacrifices (as Paul was doing when he was arrested according to Acts 21). Paul even used his status as an Orthodox Rabbi (okay, a Pharisee -- same thing) to gain opportunities to speak at various synagogues that he stopped through on his travels. Before the Sanhedrin, he even declared, "I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) Yes, the early apostles were Torah observant, but they knew that that's not what saved them (Gal 2:15,16). They were simply fulfilling their calling as Jews (see Romans 11:29) -- the same as today's Messianic Jews do now. Ones calling and ones salvation are two different things. My calling as a Bible teaching web freak doesn't save me any more than your calling as a cult-watcher saves you (assuming that's what you are). Nor can any calling, job or title, whether it be apostle, pastor, prophet or pope, make us any more a first class citizen in God's kingdom than you or I already are by virtue of being in Messiah. Our calling is given to us by God, but we get in trouble when we think highly of ourselves because of it, or expect others to live by the guidelines unique to our specific calling. That's what the Judaisers of the first century were doing, and what we tend to do with our cultural taboos (I'm a missionary, I know), our denominational distinctives, our health food kicks, and -- well, maybe just a few of today's Messianic Jews are guilty of it as well!
The bottom line, which we need to apply not only to new ideas and teachings, but also to ourselves is: is our focus on Yeshua, or is what we teach distracting us from (or in any way minimising) the Person and work of Messiah?
Yeshua's Test John F. Kennedy said, "You can deceive some of the people all of the time, and you can deceive all of the people some of the time..."
In the moral to his story of the owl, James Thurber probably said it more accurately: "You can deceive too many of the people too much of the time."
Yeshua knew only too well that it's easy to say all the right things and look like we've got it all together, and be far of the mark. He warned that many would say, "Lord, lord," (or "Yeshua is Lord," or "Yeshua has come in the flesh"...) (Matthew 7:21), but would end up in outer darkness because their deeds don't match their actions. When He said, "Many will come in My name, saying, 'I am Messiah (or Christ -- meaning anointed one)'," (Matthew 24:5) He may have meant, they would come saying, "I am anointed". For that reason, he gave the following warning:
Beware of lying preachers, who will come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath they are ravenous wolves. You will discern them by their fruit. Do men harvest grapes from a thornbush, or figs from a briar patch? Thus, every good tree shows good fruit, but a corrupt tree shows bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Without exception, every tree which does not demonstrate good fruit is chopped down and cast into the fire. The good man speaks good things from his heart, and the evil man speaks forth evil things, for from the abundance which is in the heart, the mouth speaks. For this reason, you will know what kind of tree they are by the fruit they produce. (Matthew 7:15-20 -- from Yeshua - The Rememberance, a harmonised translation)
Let's look again carefully. Did He say, everyone who says "Lord, Lord," isn't following through? -- or everyone who says "I am anointed", is a deceiver? -- or every stranger wearing sheep's clothing is really a wolf? Did He say, "You will know them by their vocabulary" (provided it's not profanity)?
No. He said, before we make any conclusion, check out their fruit.
What is fruit? It is something that grows naturally from a tree, or from a seed.
A person's conduct is an important part, however it's more than that. It doesn't result from following a set of rules. That would have been what the Judaisers were looking for. If it did, many Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems would qualify for God's kingdom because their actions far out shine those of many Christians!
However, excellent conduct is one of the natural fruits of keeping our focus on Messiah and seeking to follow Him ever more closely. It's the fruit James looked for in his epistles, when he said, "Faith without works is dead." It's the fruit Paul looked for in I Corinthians, which should have been the result of focusing on "Messiah Yeshua, and Him crucified." He even gave instructions on disfellowshipping a believer because of gross misconduct.
In the early days of the church, they were very serious about a preachers conduct. In the Didache, we find the following: ... not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only if he has the ways of the Lord. From his ways therefore the false prophet and the prophet can be recognised ... Every prophet teaching the truth, if he doesn't do what he teaches, is a false prophet ... Whoever shall say in the Spirit, Give me silver or anything else, you shall not listen to him; but if he tells you to give on behalf of others who are in want, let no man judge him.
Being that in the English speaking world of our day and age, the life of the average Christian is hardly distinguishable from that of the world at large, it rather begs the question: who has the right to cast the first stone?
But ones conduct isn't the only fruit. Paul listed love, joy, peace, etc. in Galatians 5:22 as being the natural product of walking in the spirit. James describes the "wisdom from above" (James 3:13-18, especially verse 17) in a similar way, as being peaceable, easy to entreat, etc.
All added together, I think the fruit we should expect to see is a truly righteous and holy life that attracts the sinners, as Yeshua did the publicans of His day, rather than that of the Pharisees (and many a religionist today) that tends rather to repel. In other words a morality based on love, that is more interested in winning the world than in making it safer for ones own kind; and more intent on including all others in ones circle of fellowship, if at all possible, than in looking for reasons to exclude them.
That last consideration brings us to the next issue.
It literally means, "one who causes division" It has come to mean one whose teaching does not follow the accepted doctrine of the church. Of course, the result (if not the motive) for divergent teaching is often to keep ones own followers separate from the rest of the body, especially when one has been elevating ones own Scriptural integrity at the expense of the historic church. But it's the resulting division that is inferred by the literal meaning of "heretic". This was also Paul's main concern in his epistles to Timothy.
Unity in the body of Messiah is very high on God's agenda. It was the final prayer of Yeshua in John 17:21. It was a major concern of Paul, as we see in I Corinthians chapter 1:10-13; chapter 12:12-27 and Ephescans 4:1-16. In his letter to the Corinthians, we observe that lack of unity resulted from their failing to focus on "Messiah Yeshua and Him crucified". The Ephesians context also reaffirms this, including unity as being a part of the "fullness of Messiah".
As an aside, whenever we preach or teach on I Corinthians, we tend to preface our message by saying, "Those Corinthians! They were so carnal, and so sectarian!" and all the rest of it, as though we were in the position to criticise, or be smug in any way. I have the feeling that if one of us suddenly found ourselves in the marketplace of first century Corinth, and sat for a cup of coffee with the worst of them, he would probably receive the biggest shock. "You have how many churches in your city?" he'd gasp. "You don't even get together with them for love feasts and all that? Hey c'mon! Maybe I prefer to listen to Apolos, and hang out with the blokes that agree with me, but those others who go for Peter, they're not such a bad bunch. At least we all still go to the same church. Now, Rabbi Paul gets upset with us because a few of us like to sit at the end of the table where the good food is, but you say the lower income believers in your city go to a separate church altogether?" [he laughs sardonically] "A church for every social class! Wow! Next you'll say you have a separate church for people who speak in tongues!" [you finish your coffee in dead silence]
According to the Epistle of Clement (an early church father), it only took the one or two epistles of Paul to get the Corinthians back on track. We have that and much more, and look what shape we're in!
The fact is, unity and the maintaining of relationship is so high on God's agenda that Proverbs 6:16-19 lists the sowing discord as among the things God hates the most. In other words, heresy, by the literal definition.
Therefore, the "heretic" could be the leader of a more mainstream type of church, as the Judaisers were, who fights the so-called "heresy" by emphasising minor doctrines instead of focusing peoples attention on the person and work of Messiah. Under the heading of "minor doctrines" we could include the distinctives of Calvinism, Arminianism, Weslian theology, Dispensatconalism, pre- or post- trib or any other angle of escatology, Replacement theology, Kingdom theology, Messianic Judaism, Pentecostalism, Charismatic, Word of Faith, Toronto Blessing, Prophetic Movement, Emerging Church, House Church -- anything that doesn't focus solidly on Messiah -- which each of the above admittitadly does in theory though not always in practice. It's too easy to talk about focusing on Messiah without actually focusing on Him.
So we see, the Judaisers, though a part of the mainstream, and defending their concept of "historical Christianity", were the real heretics of their time even though they were fighting what they perceived as a fringe group out to seduce pure Messianic Judaism towards non-Torah observance.
The Spirit of Error
Now that we've covered the basic anatomy of a heresy, let's go back and take another look at the word, "error". However, instead of error as simple misinformation, as we looked at earlier on, we'll look at the spirit of error, an issue voiced by many concerned with pinpointing heresy.
The spirit of error is, as the term implies, a spiritual force. Being demonic in nature, it is a deliberate attempt on the part of these forces to undermine the Kingdom of God by planting error where it will do the most damage.
I think that's a simple enough definition that we can all agree with. Applying the scriptures we looked at earlier, we can make the following conclusions:
Being a spirit, it should respond to the tests of I John 4, and I Corinthians 12, as well as the fruit test. But, as we noted earlier, because those under the influence of such spirits aren't directly controlled as in demonic possession per se, they may not have any problem quoting the phrase "Jesus is Lord", or "Jesus has come in the flesh". However the spirit of error will tend to draw people off in that direction, either in word or in practice, as well as towards disunity or separation from others in the Body of Messiah. A heresy will be the final result, even though the spirit of error, in its early stages, may be found in many settings that seem thoroughly compatible with mainstream Christianity, just as it did with the Judaisers.
As we noted in the introduction, focusing on the Person and work of Messiah will naturally draw us closer to the other members of His Body. The same spirit, whether it begins through doctrinal divergence or simply through lack of cohesion with (or disregard for) others in the greater Body of Messiah, will eventually affect both areas. That can also be seen as a part of the fruit.
How Not To Spot a Heretic
Now that we've discussed most of the important aspects regarding how to spot a heresy, let's apply it all by looking at a few common mistakes we tend to make in trying to distinguish heretics.
Case in point: Rick Joyner has been labelled as a heretic because of his association with Paul Cain. Both Rick Joyner and Paul Cain perceive themselves to be prophets, which to some, is already quite heretical enough, as many activities labelled as "prophetic" (especially in the so-called "prophetic movement") resemble occult practice. Besides that, Paul Cain is a heritic because of his origins in the Latter Rain movement. The Latter Rain movement is heretical because that's where the doctrines of the "Manifested Sons of God" and "Kingdom Now" theology came from. Because of similar associations, the whole Toronto/Pensacola revival movement is judged to be completely off base.
Let's look at five or so assumptions that are insinuated by this evaluation:
Guilt by association As we noted above, Rick.Joyner is assumed to be a heretic because of his association with Paul Cain. It's really quite a handy way to classify someone, and saves lots of time. All you have to do is establish that one of them is a heretic and you've got them both!
I'm afraid that real life isn't so simple. It brings us back to the assumption that error is the same as heresy. It assumes that in order to not be a heretic himself, Rick Joyner must draw the line between error and heresy at exactly the same place we do, and agree that Paul Cain is a heretic -- assuming, of course, he also agrees implicitly that all of Paul Cain's errors are indeed errors.
This assumption never gives one the benefit of the doubt, but rather, holds one guilty until proven innocent.
Of course it can't possibly be that Rick knows something about Paul that we don't. How could he get to know him so closely without breaking the rules that say one must treat a heretic as a sinner and a publican?
And what is it that makes Paul Cain a heretic? His association with the Latter Rain movement. Of course, it's because Rick Joyner doesn't believe in guilt by association that he fails to view Paul Cain as a heretic, and is therefore a heretic himself (by the way, I'm indebted to Rick Joyner for this and some of the other points on how not to judge movements -- which, of course, makes me a heretic!).
Guilt by association with a movement, or membership in an organisation, is the result of our long held notion that the Church, the Body of Messiah, is primarily an organisation, or an institution -- or for the more ecumenical, a network of institutions. This understanding misses the point that the church is people, and relationships. What saves us isn't the denomination's statement of faith, but the response of our hearts and our individual confession towards the Person and work of Messiah. Our relationship to one another isn't based on our membership in some club or other, but the fact we've been made one in Messiah. Denominations and organisations are tools of the church. While we thank God for having used them to preserve the knowledge of the gospel and spread it to the four corners of the earth, we must also recognise that they don't define the church.
Another example is the issue of Ecumencalism and the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, all Catholics are assumed to be heretics, in some circles, because of their membership in the Church of Rome. The Ecumenical movement is seen as an apostate movement because of the Catholic issue.
What is my position on the Ecumenical movement? Just like its detractors, it misses the point. Joining all the churches organisationally won't bring unity in the Body because the organisations aren't the Body. Neither will resisting Ecumenicalism save the Church, for exactly the same reason. The official doctrine of a church, however pure or compromised has never saved a single soul*. Faith in the heart does.
And what do I think of Catholicism? I don't believe in praying to Mary or the saints, but neither do I assume that all Catholics do.
Guilt based on resemblance In the above example, many occurances of the prophetic gift, as well as other Charismatic or Pentecostal type manifestations are judged to be occult because of their resemblance in some areas.
I've heard that when bank employees are trained to detect counterfeit notes, they aren't shown the counterfeits, but real bank notes. The idea is that, by becoming thoroughly familiar with the look and feel of genuine money, they automatically become adept at realising which ones are the fake.
The principal here is, you can never fully learn about anything in the real world by studying its opposite. For one thing, there are very few 100% opposites in nature.
During the Cold War, some people, especially in America, saw everything as fitting into a bi-polar pattern. If anything resembled the way the Communists did things, it was "un-American", or "un-western", as if everything in life could be plotted on a straight line, with "Communist" on one end, and "American free enterprise system" on the other.
Unfortunately, we fall into the same trap when we say, "That can't be Biblical, it's too much like such-and-such"
By accepting a bi-polar view of spiritual things we unwittingly fall for yet another ancient heresy, Dualism. That is the belief that there are two eternal powers, or entities, God representing the "good" pole, and either the physical world, or satan himself occupying the opposite pole.
There are many ways in which God and satan seem like opposites. However, as much as satan would like to think so, they are not 100% equal opposites. They could never be, because while God is infinite satan is limited in every way. While God is 100% truth, satan could never get away with a 100% lie. He has to mix truth and falsehood to get anyone to believe him.
One way in which God and satan are certainly not opposites is the fact that they are both spiritual. For this reason, divine prophetic manifestation and occult phenomena may often appear to look alike on some levels. This shouldn't strike us as strange, as it was so in Bible times. In I Samuel 9:9, it is actually mentioned that in the early days, a prophet was often referred to as a "seer", or something like a fortune teller. Twice, King Saul was with a company of prophets -- ones who were pupils of Samuel in his school of prophets (Samuel 10:9ff; 19:18ff). Both times, the spirit of prophecy came over him, but the messages were not distinct enough to be recorded. It seems that the term "prophecy" was a general term meaning to go into a trance or ecstatic state. The second time it happened to Saul, he was in such a state he even took off his clothes! I hope that's one manifestation we won't be seeing in our age, however strong the wind blows. Instances such as this would appear to resemble something more like shamanism than what we normally think of as prophetic gifting.
Because man is himself essentially a spirit being, it is this aspect that responds most visibly to both divine experience and occult manifestation. Being that both are spiritual, there will be a resemblance. However, the fruit, in the case of the divine manifestation would be according to Galatians 5:22, and the other areas we looked at, and the effect should magnify the Person and work of Messiah in response to the tests of I Corinthians 12, and I John 4. In fact, it is because spiritual manifestations can look alike, that the spirits must be tested.
Disqualification based on ones past Because Paul Cain used to be a part of the Latter Rain movement, as well as a participant of the healing revival of the 50s, the movement that brought us A. A. Allen, big top tents, and evangelistic showmanship, he cannot be trusted as a true minister of God. In the case of Paul Cain, this is probably the same as guilt by association, as he really has nothing personal to live down. In the case of Jim Bakker, in which he had obviously committed sin, but has also humbled himself and confessed his faults, to disqualify him because of his past would amount to minimising the power of Messiah's atoning and cleansing blood. In cases where we are not sure what has transpired, while it's good to make enquires, it's best to keep our mouths shut, lest we be found to be the heretics.
Evaluating a group or movement by its most extreme elements Because of such doctrines as Manifested Sons of God, and Kingdom Now, the Latter Rain movement is shown to be off base. However, in every movement there are those who become over-excited about the uniqueness of their particular group and carry it to an extreme. Unfortunately, because of their extremism, these are often the most visible. Whatever the case, they are found in every movement, however old or new. For instance, I'm sure the Open Brethren wouldn't want to be put in the same box as the Closed Brethren. In the same way, many Closes Brethren know of those in their own movement they wouldn't want to be judged by. Even in the early reformation, when Martin Luther announced that salvation was by faith alone (sola fide), there were found those who twisted that, claiming saving faith while living like the devil, thereby discrediting Luther's message by their lives.
The whole Protestant movement was already discredited to the Catholic communities by the zealous few who slaughtered Catholics, and vice versa. Even before that, the whole Christian movement was misrepresented to the Jewish community by the Inquisition and other events like the Crusades. It is the Crusades, by which Christianity is still remembered to this day by the Moslem community. It's always the greatest atrocities that stick out and are remembered.
Is that fair?
No, but it's human nature. However, being that we've been made new creatures in Messiah, let's rise above our carnal human way of seeing things and look beyond the more extreme elements, and like Richard Nixon, locate the silent majority.
Categorising a movement as a heresy based on other than the basic points of doctrine As for the Manifested Sons of God and the Kingdom Now movements, how heretical are they?
As far as I know, their main claim to fame is a view of the end times that diverges from that of the mainstream. In the case of Kingdom Now, it's a belief that the Church's role is to usher in the reign of Messiah and after the whole world has been given a good clean-up then Messiah will come.
In fact, that is hardly different from the Post Millinial doctrine that was the majority position of the church since about the second or third century all the way into the Reformation. It was only when the doctrine of Dispensationalism emerged in the nineteenth century that Post Mellenialism began to give way in a large sector of the Evangelical movement. Before, one was a heretic for failing to uphold Post Millenialism. Now, in some circles, one is a heretic for doing so. I'm neither a Post Mlllenialist myself, nor a Dispensationalist, but neither do I hold either of these as being heretical.
The Manifested Sons group perhaps holds a more unique view, believing that we will be changed into our resurrection bodies while left to walk the earth.
That, of course, disagrees with what the rest of us believe will happen. However, just like "pre-trib", "mid-trib", "post-trib", "post-mil", etc. it has neither happened nor failed to happen yet. Shouldn't we, rather, emphasise what we ought to be doing right now? Is it any more wrong for them to emphasise their view than for us to get as carried away as we do with our "xx-trib" doctrines? Or, perhaps, that's why we're so offended by them -- because they get in the way of our pet theory?
In that case, who's the heretic?
I don't know very much about the Manifested Sons people, whether or not they separate themselves from others, or whether they've simply been forced into that mode by others or if they are otherwise noticeably distinct from the rest of us. Another question, of course is, do they err in reguard to (or minimise) the personhood and work of Messiah? Whatever the case, I think we should tend to our own back yard first, before proclaiming who's a heretic for committing the same sin as us.
Who Set the Standards?
By "standards", I mean something like what software developers go by -- something agreed on by some consortium of companies so that computers using differing platforms and operating systems can talk the same language. That's why it's possible to view the same web sites using Windows, Macintosh or Linux, or using Windows Explorer, Netscape, Opera, Mozzila or KDE Konqorer.
Who sets the standards for the Christian world whereby we know who's a heretic and who's right on? I think if you look carefully, you'll notice that every denomination has it's own bureau of standards of sorts. There are even a few "cross platform" standard keepers -- the cult watchers. For now, that's probably as it should be. We probably can't dismantal the standard keepers without tearing down the denominations. I believe that one day, through some crises or other, institutions may come crashing down, and all we will have left will be communities of believers, but in the mean time, we -- myself especially -- are simply not called to go about tearing them down. Even though, as I said, denominations are not the church, too many spiritual lives are presently dependant on them. Unless one is fully prepared to pick up all the pieces, don't even think of it!
What we can do is pay a bit more attention to the source -- the One who purchased the Church with His own blood, the Head of the Church. He is the only one with the ultimate right to say who is a part of it and who isn't.
While He was teaching His followers, James and John reported that they found someone casting out demons in Yeshua's Name, but because he belonged to a different denomination, wasn't a part of our apostolic network, didn't subscribe to our bureau of standards, and was therefore not guaranteed 100% error free, was probably a bit off on his eschotology besides, and probably believed in falling over backwards when being prayed for; they stopped him. The Head of the Church responded by saying, "Don't stop him. He who isn't against Me is for Me." Again, it's the question of "Who's focusing on Messiah?" rather than "What group does he or she belong to?"
Paul, of any one, probably had the right to exert control over who had input into the various churches he planted, but he told the Galatian believers (Gal 14:17,18) he didn't mind it if others "zealously affected" them, as long as it was in a good thing. He even rejoiced when the gospel was preached out of jealousy by those who saw themselves in competition with him, because at least the gospel was being preached (Phil 1:14 18).
I think the above shows us that the Kingdom of God is a more open standard than we give it credit for, and it would do us good to reflect it in our attitude towards one another. Once we can clearly distinguish where the line is drawn, we will be enabled to do just that.
*...thank God for having used them to preserve the knowledge of the gospel ... the official doctrine of a church, however pure or compromised has never saved a single soul... Am I contradicting myself? The knowledge saves us, yes. But who is responsible to teach that knowledge, the organisation, or people? Worded another way, who is responsible to teach children the knowledge of God, sunday school teachers, or parents? If we as parents have been failing in our duty, then thank God for sunday school teachers!
