How – and How Not – to Deal with a Heretic. - Comments (1)

Category: Articles,Doctrine,GES: Hodges, Wilkin, et.al.
Author: John Malone
Date: 20th August, 2007 @ 05:14:35 PM

I’m a bit surprised at how poorly my brothers understand about how to deal with a heretic. It could be there is too little shepherding to go along with their teaching, and the lack of “laboratory” experience is paralyzing – even crippling – them.

I am up against being sorely misunderstood – not that I will allow that to deter me – in the matter of the Hodges-Wilkin-Bryant-Niemela (HWBN) heresy, which is sometimes known as the “Crossless Gospel,” as dubbed by Tom Stegall (a brother of like mind and like background with me – we were each formerly in the Roman Catholic Organization (RCO)), a pastor in the Milwaukee area.

HERETIC:Titus Chapter 3
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.

The topic here is a heretic, a person. Therefore the issue is not first and foremost doctrine. Doctrine is not the primary issue: it is an instrument used by the heretic. It becomes prominent because the heretic is found to be advancing error in order to create the schism he does, and to demonstrate the heretic that he is.

According to the passage under consideration here in Titus 3, we come across the heretic in the course of discovering, among other things, contentions in the assembly. This is the tip of the iceberg that is the heretic: his foolish questions, or genealogies, or contentions, or fights. The heretic himself is the main body of the berg.

The direction the apostle gives is not what we are inclined to do. Firstly, he says, avoid the heretic’s material. Secondly, after two (and only two) admonitions, avoid the heretic himself.

Heretics are “turned out,” willful in their opinion (the word “heretic” is based on the Greek word “to choose”), and self-condemned. This is something “to see” with our eyes, and “to know” with the eyes of our understanding.

Problems arise when wrong principles are applied. Let’s take the cases of Hodges. Wilken, et. al. We find solid dispensational Bible guys trying to apply the principle articulated in Matthew 18:15-17 to deal with these fellows, instead of taking into account the whole of revealed truth, including three especially relevant passages found in Galatians, 1st Timothy, and, as above, Titus.

This is a misapplication, to be sure. The principle of Matthew 18 has to do with personal offense, not public behavior in the church. In fact, in this Scripture, where the word “church” is first used in the New Testament, the church does not find out about the behavior until the process of jurisprudence has concluded in failure.

In the traveling show that is Bob Wilkin and the ever-shrinking GES company, they have a couple of side shows to complement the main course, now going by the title of the “crossless gospel.” One such “side show” was conducted in Omaha, and was labeled, “Dealing graciously with an erring brother.” The thrust of that “workshop” was that Paul’s example in Galatia with Peter is not one to be followed. In its place, Matthew 18 is called for.

Therefore, I would like to clarify why it is that Hodges, Wilkins, Bob Bryant, and John Niemela, and anyone else who regularly assumes a platform in churches or other gatherings for public teaching (including me, by the way) are not afforded the privacy protections of Matt 18 when it comes to being suspected of misleading others.

While Matthew 18 does not apply in the instant case, it does provide the basis from which progresses the doctrinal basis for all “church discipline” issues. We see a progression of doctrine from there through Romans 16:17, on to Galatians example because Galatians establishes practice in light of Romans doctrine, then on to pastoral advice in 1st Timothy and then Titus 3.

As there is with all doctrine in Scripture, this one of church discipline progresses. In fact, the failure of Hodges, Wilkin, et. al. to take into account progress of doctrine in Scripture not only shows faulty thinking, but denies their claims to a dispensational approach to – and thereby a right dividing of – Scripture. But the error in the matter fo publicly dealing with those in error is far to convenient in this case to overlook.

So, dismissing Matthew 18 as applying to heretics, we have three other Scriptures teaching us, and one example.

First, the teaching of Rom 16:17 is helpful.

Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

It’s easy to see this scripture anticipates Titus 3. It also anticipates Paul’s dealing with Peter in Galatia. Some may say, “According to our best knowledge, the Galatian incident happened before the writing of Romans.” To that argument, I say we have the Scriptures as they are. There are some controversies – albeit marginally small – about how the “New Testament” is ordered, but it is not controversial that Romans precedes Galatians, or that the pastorals follow the “church epistles (1 Corinthians through 2nd Thessalonians). This denominates progress of doctrine in Scripture, and if one beholds it, it is a marvelous fabric indeed!

First, in this Scripture, the apostle urgently summons the brethren in Rome to identify certain ones who are promoting a different basis of teaching or practice (it could be either) that is contrary to that which the Romans had learned. Note well that this “different basis” was scandalous to the believers who held the true basis (understanding). Interestingly, this is EXACTLY what the believers are saying about the HWBN heresy: “These guys are not making a laughing stock of those of us who believe in ‘free grace.’”

Indeed. It’s a scandal. It’s not only contrary to what we have learned, it is contrary to what these same men once taught!

Galatians 2:11-14
¹¹ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
¹² For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
¹³ And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation
¹⁴ But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Second, in this Scripture we find an application by Paul of the articulated principle of public admonition. He opposes Peter to his face, in public, because he knew Peter’s public conduct in the assembly was wrong, being inconsistent with the truth, and thereby defeating by example the gospel message being held and taught at Antioch. Those who claim this led to Barnabas’ disqualification to travel with Paul are, in my opinion, spot on.

In fact, it would appear the more influential someone is within an assembly, the more directly and forcefully – and publicly – he should be called out for defeating “the truth.” From experience, I’m pretty sure that, when the event occurred in Antioch, there were plenty there who criticized Paul for his forceful and direct approach, albeit not publicly, lest Paul put them to shame also. In any case, the point was made, and, presumably, the Antioch church was spared what ultimately befell the church at Jerusalem.

1st Timothy 5:19-21
¹⁹ Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
²⁰ Them that sin rebuke
before all, that others also may fear.
²¹ I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another. , doing nothing by partiality

Third, we find the two-fold proposition for the elder. On the one hand, he is afforded the special protection of requiring two witnesses. On the other, he is subject to public prosecution in the assembly. This is the true privilege and price of leadership. Therefore, when we see people shutting down this process, teaching against it, or other such clamor, we should beware. It takes courage to be faithful, and it’s costly to be faithful. It’s also not easy to publicly confront church elders when they err.

Now, it could readily be said in the case of Hodges-Wilkin, et. al. that that are NOT elders. In the case of Hodges and wilkin, they are not qualified; in the former case, he is unmarried, and in the latter, he has no children. so each one is untested. And yet, they presume places of leadership in the churches that welcome them, and so, one may readily claim they presume to themselves the stature of an elder, albeit not the responsibilities.

It’s my view they should be publicly confronted for their errors (sins).

1 Comment » Leave a comment