Listen To Most Current
Grace Notes Archive
December 2023 (1)
November 2023 (4)
October 2023 (4)
September 2023 (5)
August 2023 (4)
July 2023 (5)
June 2023 (4)
May 2023 (4)
April 2023 (5)
March 2023 (5)
February 2023 (4)
January 2023 (4)
December 2022 (5)
November 2022 (4)
October 2022 (5)
September 2022 (6)
August 2022 (4)
July 2022 (5)
June 2022 (4)
May 2022 (4)
April 2022 (7)
March 2022 (4)
February 2022 (4)
January 2022 (5)
December 2021 (5)
November 2021 (4)
October 2021 (5)
September 2021 (4)
August 2021 (4)
July 2021 (6)
June 2021 (4)
May 2021 (5)
April 2021 (4)
March 2021 (5)
February 2021 (4)
January 2021 (5)
December 2020 (4)
November 2020 (4)
October 2020 (5)
September 2020 (4)
August 2020 (5)
July 2020 (21)
June 2020 (29)
May 2020 (28)
April 2020 (31)
March 2020 (5)
February 2020 (4)
January 2020 (5)
December 2019 (5)
November 2019 (3)
October 2019 (5)
September 2019 (4)
August 2019 (5)
July 2019 (4)
June 2019 (5)
May 2019 (4)
April 2019 (4)
March 2019 (4)
February 2019 (6)
January 2019 (4)
December 2018 (4)
November 2018 (5)
October 2018 (4)
September 2018 (4)
August 2018 (4)
July 2018 (3)
June 2018 (4)
May 2018 (4)
April 2018 (4)
March 2018 (4)
February 2018 (5)
January 2018 (4)
December 2017 (4)
November 2017 (5)
October 2017 (4)
September 2017 (5)
August 2017 (4)
July 2017 (4)
June 2017 (5)
May 2017 (4)
April 2017 (5)
March 2017 (3)
February 2017 (4)
January 2017 (3)
December 2016 (5)
November 2016 (4)
October 2016 (4)
September 2016 (5)
August 2016 (3)
July 2016 (4)
June 2016 (5)
May 2016 (4)
April 2016 (5)
March 2016 (4)
February 2016 (4)
January 2016 (5)
December 2015 (4)
November 2015 (4)
October 2015 (3)
September 2015 (4)
August 2015 (5)
July 2015 (5)
June 2015 (4)
May 2015 (5)
April 2015 (2)
March 2015 (4)
February 2015 (4)
January 2015 (5)
December 2014 (4)
November 2014 (5)
October 2014 (4)
September 2014 (4)
August 2014 (4)
July 2014 (5)
June 2014 (4)
May 2014 (5)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (4)
February 2014 (4)
January 2014 (5)
December 2013 (4)
November 2013 (5)
October 2013 (4)
September 2013 (4)
August 2013 (5)
July 2013 (4)
June 2013 (3)
May 2013 (5)
April 2013 (4)
March 2013 (4)
February 2013 (5)
January 2013 (4)
December 2012 (4)
November 2012 (5)
October 2012 (4)
September 2012 (4)
August 2012 (5)
July 2012 (4)
June 2012 (4)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (4)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (4)
January 2012 (4)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (4)
October 2011 (4)
September 2011 (5)
August 2011 (4)
July 2011 (4)
June 2011 (5)
May 2011 (4)
April 2011 (5)
March 2011 (4)
February 2011 (4)
January 2011 (5)
December 2010 (4)
November 2010 (4)
October 2010 (4)
September 2010 (5)
August 2010 (4)
July 2010 (6)
June 2010 (4)
May 2010 (4)
April 2010 (4)
March 2010 (5)
February 2010 (4)
January 2010 (5)
December 2009 (5)
November 2009 (3)
October 2009 (6)
September 2009 (3)
August 2009 (5)
July 2009 (4)
June 2009 (4)
May 2009 (5)
April 2009 (4)
March 2009 (4)
February 2009 (4)
January 2009 (5)
December 2008 (4)
November 2008 (5)
October 2008 (4)
September 2008 (5)
August 2008 (4)
July 2008 (3)
June 2008 (4)
May 2008 (5)
April 2008 (4)
March 2008 (5)
February 2008 (1)
Grace Notes

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

SEPARATION: REJECT
by Philip Owen

             What does it say about our nature that so many tend to find the doctrine of separation totally reprehensible and will do anything to avoid it when the Scripture speaks so directly and extensively about it?  Surely, it does not reveal how loving we are—as many would like to have us believe.  Rather, it shows how far removed we are—even many real believers—from a holy God and His righteous requirements.  Though requiring some definitions, the text for today is clear, succinct, and unequivocal.  And as believers, we will be measured in part according to our faithfulness to this clear injunction:  “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Tit. 3:10, 11).  We will try to avoid the modern tendency to dilute any of the major points this text makes by answering four questions.

                What is “an heretick”?  In casual speech, we may use the term heretic to describe an atheist or someone who aggressively challenges religious faith.  Paul has something seemingly less nefarious in mind, for his “heretic” was not a wholesale infidel.  On the contrary, he was a religious person who promoted teachings contrary to what Paul had taught, i.e., contrary to the Word of God.  The word translated in the AV as heretic comes from a root meaning “choice” and suggests a person who chooses for himself doctrines contrary to the Word of God, a creator of sects, or a person who causes doctrinal divisions.  Paul, then, does not have in mind especially the blasphemous atheist or the ranting agnostic when he warns about “an heretick.”  Rather, he so identifies any advocate for a doctrine or practice that runs counter to the Scriptures.

                How is “an heretick” to be treated?  Paul offers no handwringing, wishy-washy method of dealing with individuals who have been identified as teaching things contrary to Scripture.  The procedure is simple.  They are to be given a first warning (“admonition”); then they are to be given a second warning.  Paul does not say give two warnings, but he designates both a first and second warning.  In so doing, he seems to be laying emphasis on a very precise and finite procedure.  One warning is too few, but three are too many.  The offender must be given ample opportunity to repent of his error, but the effects of promoting false doctrine are so destructive to the welfare of the local assembly that the process of remediation must be brief.  If the offender does not repent after two warnings, then he is to be rejected.  Locke observes in his commentary that this is “a favourite word” in the pastoral epistles.  The word is wonderfully simple, clear, and powerful; it means just what we think it means:  “shun.”  There is no place in a sound body for divisive doctrines and practices (i.e., those contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture), and purveyors of such error must not be tolerated.

                Why must “an heretick” be rejected?  Paul offers three forceful reasons that he suggests should be self-evident in such a circumstance.  First, one who insists on promoting doctrine contrary to Scripture, having received two specific warnings that point out his departure from the truth, is “subverted.”  The term we would use today is both powerful and deliberately offensive:  “perverted.”  He is hopelessly “turned aside” from the truth, and the church no longer has any direct ministerial duty toward him; prolonging the process would only expose the church as a whole to harm.  Second, the nature of this perversion is not merely some sociological weakness or psychological aberration.  Anyone may become temporarily confused or deceived, but twice having rejected biblical warning, this man should be recognized as blatantly sinning against God.  And third, he is “condemned of himself.”  Having been the recipient of gracious biblical warning about his divisive teachings, the divider is without excuse.  His rejection of the truth leaves him condemned of himself.  And anyone who would defend or even excuse his behavior, anyone who does not reject him, is himself disobeying the Word of God.

                What particular doctrines or practices does Paul have in mind?  The list would be too long to enumerate.  The key to identifying and dealing biblically with these individuals and their error sometimes lies in identifying the problem from a biblical list of doctrinal heresies but sometimes in recognizing its unbiblical fruit.  Does the idea being promoted result in division among those who wish to be faithful to the Word of God?  Then the proponent of that idea should be recognized as “an heretick” and treated according to the biblical mandate.     

Actions: E-mail | Permalink

Previous Page | Next Page