[Biblemat] "How Should We View False Teachers?"

[Don Martin]

             "How Should We View False Tearchers?"
                                 By Don Martin


I cannot tell you how many times I have read articles pertaining to the
treatment of false teachers.  Some of these articles were better written,
more detailed, and contained a more exhaustive exercise of the subject than
will characterize this brief article.  Others, alas, were replete with both
error and truth, the most dangerous kind of teaching (cp. 2 Pet. 2: 1, 2).

The material of the just mentioned latter type will, without exception,
mention at least once in the introduction, "We must not bid God speed to
false teaching."  The referenced material also points out that there can be
disagreements over matters doctrinally inconsequential and that such should
not be the cause of spiritual alienations.  The incident involving John Mark
and the apostle Paul is almost without failure sited (Acts 15: 37-40).  It
is mentioned that later Paul commended John Mark and considered him
spiritually "profitable" (2 Tim. 4: 11).  About fifteen years anterior to
Paul commending John Mark, John Mark had been the source of a "sharp
contention" between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15: 39).  Paul did not relent,
but refused to have John Mark in his company, electing Silas to go with him
and Barnabas took John Mark.  There is no indication that John Mark taught
false teaching, but Paul apparently objected to some instability in the life
and character of John Mark, based on a prior experience with him.  What
happened between Acts 15 and 2 Timothy 4 involving Paul and Mark?  We do not
know.  However, at some point during this fifteen year interim, Mark
developed more stability and reliability and Paul could then recommend John
Mark.

I think some have extracted and deduced wrong points relative to the matter
involving Paul and John Mark and have then applied their flawed reasoning to
current situations in such a way as to deprecate the responsibility that we
have toward false teachers.

"Paul did not carry a grudge regarding Mark," we are told.  Let us
appreciate that Paul had a right to his view of Mark and his consequent
refusal to use him in the work.  Not only a "right" did Paul have, but
really, when all things are considered, an obligation.  An unstable man who
would neglect preaching responsibilities as Mark appears to have done can do
great harm.  This was not, be it known, simply a personal matter between
Paul and Mark.

"Paul did not spend his time running down Mark," some say, having, I am
afraid, a larger agenda.  In the first place, how do they know what Paul did
relative to Mark prior to Mark's change?  Allow me to ask a question:  If
the church in Ephesus contacted Paul before Mark changed and asked Paul:
"We are considering having Mark for a meeting, do you know any fact that
should be considered by us before asking Mark?,"  what do you think Paul
would have said?  Knowing Paul and his emphasis on the gospel rather than
some sort of unity-in-diversity or buddy practice, I think Paul would have
replied, "I cannot recommend Mark due to an incident in which I found him to
be unreliable."  What think ye?

Is not it strange what some see and others do not see?  I wonder how some
see in the matter of Paul and Mark an inference for compromise, even though
they say, "We must not compromise truth."  Paul did not compromise, do they
not understand this?  After Mark changed, Paul then "endorsed him."

An expansion of their basic concept involving Paul and Mark is easily
effected by them.  "Ed is not really stable regarding the work of the local
church issue, but he will not teach general benevolence, I think Ed should
be used and viewed as a good preacher," some reason.  I have talked to many
such men and they always bring up Paul and Mark.  The truth of the matter is
Ed is doctrinally unable and should not be "endorsed."  Even though Ed "will
not teach error," Ed will not teach the truth and is, therefore, guilty of
error by omission (cp. Acts 20: 27).

Involved in this expansion of thought process, we hear it said, "You should
not run down a man, give him time, he might change just as Mark did."  They
further hypothesize:  "If Paul had run down Mark, then Mark probably would
have never changed, but totally left preaching and even the church."  Oh,
how active the imagination of some is and how imagination is allowed to
exclude the truth!

These men, do not believe there are only a few of them, end up condemning a
faithful preacher of the gospel and upholding some man who simply should not
be in the pulpit at all.  I, for instance, do not simply "spend my time
running down a certain preacher(s)," however, I have in the past and I shall
in the future continue to deal with relevant issues, and on occasion,
providing names of men who are either actively teaching error or are
defending men who do actively teach false doctrine.  Just last week two
different churches contacted me with the question:  "We understand that you
have had some issues with brother....Since his name has been mention in the
context of one to conduct a meeting for us, we thought we should contact you
about any information you have regarding brother....."  Now, what was I
suppose to say?  I told them exactly what I knew and providing proof of my
statements.  Yet, I have received word, "Brother Martin does not do as did
Paul with Mark and brother Martin is causing further division and alienation
between brethren!"

Let us now be plain and say what really needs to be said.  In the first
place, there is no mystery as to how false teachers are to be treated.  Hear
Paul, the very man that is used as a model for compromise:

"17: Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18: For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own
belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple"
(Rom. 16).

Now, is not the determination of the treatment of false teachers a simple
matter?  The real problem that we have is weak kneed brethren who for what
ever reason, just cannot stand to so mark men, "...which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned."  They themselves
possess some flaw and lack of love of the truth; hence, they play around
with their false notions and misguided compassion.  They themselves do not
understand biblical unity, how it is based on doctrinal purity, and they
thus become focused on the unity of ecumenicalism (all agreeing to
disagree).

Romans fourteen is a hot issue today in the church.  The truth is Romans 14
is really not the issue, some have particular aberrant doctrines that they
want defended and, hence, they look to Romans 14 for the placement and
defense of these false tenets (see addendum).  The full truth of the matter
is even this is not the real problem, the real problem is little respect for
Bible authority and, again, no real love of the truth (Acts 4: 12, 2 Thes.
2: 10-12).

"Brother Martin, why is it you place so much importance on doctrine and do
so much teaching that is doctrinal?"  I have been asked this many times and
in every case the question has originated in a climate of ecumenicalism and
unity-in-diversity.  When I teach Ephesians 4: 3-6, I am doing so out of
love of brethren and fellow-man.  When I teach Romans 16: 17 and 2 John
9-11, I am doing so out of actual love of God and love of unity.  When I
expose men who are unsound in the faith, I am doing so out of concern for
souls of brethren.

Do not these defenders of flawed men realize that in their so called efforts
to "allow these good men time to change," they are jeopardizing the Lord's
church and the gospel of Jesus Christ?  (Gal. 1: 6-10.)  Three weeks ago, I
received a phone call about another preacher, questioning the man's
soundness.  My reply based on fact was, "The man is at best incapable of
expressing himself and the truth and lacks doctrinal stability and should
not even be in the pulpit."  Some reading this article might even think, "If
Paul had treated Mark this way, would he have later changed?"  Again, you
and I do not know what all happened regarding Paul and Mark before Mark's
change.  However, we only see Paul commending Mark AFTER Mark changed.

Let me anticipate:  "It is apparent that men such as Don Martin view
themselves as brotherhood controllers and are spending their time trying to
ruin the reputations of good preachers!"  In the first place, these "good
preachers" are ruining their own reputations!  Many of these men readily
resort to lying to defend themselves.  I have even received word that some
of the men whom I have debated have told others that there is no doctrinal
difference between them and me (these men have obviously not changed).  Such
sophistry confuses some.  Why would they debate me if they and I are in such
doctrinal harmony?

In closing, the doctrine of political correctness (new term for
unity-in-diversity) is changing the Lord's church today.  Secular historians
are watching political correctness make sweeping changes in America and we
are observing it changing the total climate of the Lord's church in many
places.  Political correctness is preparing the way for whatever is wanted,
all except what is needed, the unadulterated truth!  I weep over the changes
in America and what appears to be yet coming that will result in my
grandchildren not knowing the America that I have known.  I, moreover, weep
over the changes in the church that will result in the loss of identity of
the church of Christ and place it along side all the other human religions
that accept all manner of practices and doctrines, but not the singular
gospel of Christ.  Beloved, treat false teachers exactly as you are supposed
to treat them, mark them and warn others about them.  Do not try to find
ways to lessen their offences and do not "spend your time" condemning the
relatively few men who are warning others about such preachers.

Addendum:  Romans 14 does not provide asylum for false doctrine and false
teachers, only matters such as are discussed in the chapter, matters morally
and doctrinally indifferent, but viewed as important by the "weak" being
discussed (vs. 14).  It is tragic that more and more are attempting to place
such teaching as multiple causes for divorce into Romans 14 and calling for
the protection of men such as Mike Willis, etc.  An increasing number of
preachers identified with the Guardian of Truth Foundation are joining this
group of defenders.  Do they not realize or do they even care that their
actions are legitimizing the doctrine of multiple causes for divorce (cp.
Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9, I Cor. 7)?