Showing newest posts with label heresy. Show older posts Showing newest posts with label heresy. Show older posts09 March 2010
Colossians studies 6: Paul responds to the false teacher (1)
by Dan Phillips
[First and appropos of little, peer-pressure has done its work on me, and I have now yielded to the siren call of Twitter. Why? Because the cool kidz are doing it. And now you know that.]
Last time we outlined the false teaching that loomed as a threat to the young church in Colosse. Now we begin to study how the apostle responded.
First, I notice that Paul does not detail the false teaching. This is why there has been such debate and variations among students of the letter, through the centuries, as to the exact configuration of “the Colossian heresy.” We are left with allusions, mostly in chapter two; and with hints we glean from Paul’s emphases.
Rather than laying out the opposing view in detail, and then refuting it point by point, Paul mostly issues a positive corrective. He does not say, “Teacher X says 123, but that’s not true, because of 456. The real truth is 789.” Instead, Paul says in effect, “The truth is 789. You know this. Why ever would anyone settle for 123?”
It would be false to conclude from this that there is never any place for doing what Paul does not do here. For instance, in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does dedicate more space to presenting and refuting specific error. That is not the case, however, in Colossians.
Second, I notice that Paul doesn’t name this single false teacher who is threatening the flock. Sometimes, he does name the false teachers (1 Timothy 1:20), and sometimes he doesn’t (1 Corinthians 15:12; 2 Corinthians 12:11; Galatians 6:12). I don't know a simple formula that will explains the apostle’s choices in each case.
I can, however, observe that what the apostle actually does has the effect of focusing attention on the cure, rather than the disease (or its carrier). It is as if Paul is saying, “This man is nothing. What he is saying is of no consequence. That’s precisely what puzzles me: given that Christ is who He is, and that He has done what He has done – why would you pay any attention to such things, rather than stay as far away from them as you can?”
So what does Paul do, to counter the false teacher? I’ll lift out two related facets today, and then (DV) develop more next time.
FIRST: Paul supports the teaching of Epaphras (cf. 1:4-7, 23; 2:7 [DPUV]).
...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones, 5on account of the hope which is laid away for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth, the good news, 6which has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit of itself and growing just as also among you, from the day in which you heard it and came to know fully the grace of God in truth; 7just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,
1:23 assuming that you remain on in the faith, abidingly founded and settled and not being shifted away from the hope of the good news which you heard, which was announced in all creation which is under Heaven, of which I, Paul, became a servant
2:7 abidingly rooted and being built up in Him, and being confirmed by the faith just as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving.
Paul speaks of their faith (1:4a), love (1:4b), and hope (1:5) — and then says that they had learned these truths from Epaphras. That is Paul's seal of approval on Epaphras' teaching. In this way, the great apostle tells the Colossians, "What you already heard from Ephaphras is the real deal. It is the one saving, sanctifying, and preserving and true Gospel. There will not be another. You have no need for another. There will be no second editions, no upgrades, no supplements. What there is to know, you have already heard. Epaphras is the man."
Then 1:23 reaffirms that they are not to leave nor shift from this faith that Epaphras had taught them. What is more, it is the "catholic" faith — which is to say that it is the one Gospel that is preached everywhere, without alteration: full salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This teacher has nothing they need.
Then 2:7 again reaffirms that all the confirmation they need in Christ, they will get from the faith Epaphras had taught them. No new revelations are necessary.
So, they had already heard the right truth.
SECOND: Paul supported the character of Epaphras (cf. 1:7; 4:12, 13)
1:27 just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,
4:12 Epaphras greets you, who is one of you, a slave of Christ Jesus, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, in order that you might stand mature and fully assured in every aspect of the will of God. 13For I bear him witness that he has much anguish for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for those in Hierapolis.
To say that Epaphras is "faithful" is to say that he is reliable, dependable, can be counted on — as opposed to this self-impressed upstart. Epaphras is committed (1) to Christ's service, and (2) to their spiritual wellbeing. Neither of these things is true of the false teacher.
Not only did they already have the right truth, but had already heard if from the right man.
This, then, is Paul's opening salvo. It speaks to us today. Epaphras was not an apostle, but he had grounded that church absolutely sufficiently, by laying the church's one foundation: the preaching of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). It was not necessary that he have special standing or special, supernatural, revelatory gifting. What was necessary was that he preach Christ — and he had done that.
This tells us who are pastors to preach Christ, and we can be assured that we stand within the apostolic tradition. This is the true apostolic succession: the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. If you are dedicated to Christ's service, and if you preach the Gospel, you could cherish the hope that Paul would also write a letter commending your ministry because and only if he could also commend your message.
SIDEBAR: don't miss the sad irony here. The sect which today most famously makes the biggest noise about "apostolic succession" — doesn't have it.
It tells all us sheep, as well, to stick with the Gospel. Hear it straight, then stick with it. Expect our adversary to send persuasive salesmen with "new and improved" versions to appeal to our restless discontent. Expect, and prepare to ignore.
As we shall continue to see, Colossians brings us a very contemporary, much-needed message: Christ is supreme and sufficient. Accept neither supplement nor substitute.
Labels: apostasy, Colossians studies, Dan Phillips, Gospel, heresy
12 comments
Posted by DJP on Tuesday, March 09, 2010
02 March 2010
Colossians studies 4: the false teacher's teaching (1)
by Dan Phillips
In the last post, I introduced and defended my idea that the Colossians were being troubled by one particular charismatic false teacher. By the way, I did not mean to say that no one else has ever had that idea, which is unlikely. I may even have read it, in 35+ years of loving and reading on Colossians. But I honestly don't recall anyone advancing the position, and I do continue to see and hear the plural + Gnosticism as the standard, default position.
Now let's approach a closer look at the shape of the false teaching. After that, I plan to shift to focusing on how Paul responded to it.
As TruthStands observed in the last post's meta, Colosse was ideally situated for syncretism. In case that's not a regular word for you, syncretism is basically playing religious mix-n-match. You take a bit from various religions and mix it together, so that what you have is a little of several religions, but not any particular religion — until it itself becomes a religion. I'd say that Christian Science, Religious Science, and Roman Catholicism are three syncretistic religions, for example. You could name others.
Why was it ideal for syncretism? Here is where introductory matters matter, in interpretation. As I observed in the first post, Colosse hosted travellers going to and from Rome and the Euphrates Valley, and was home to native Phrygians, Greek settlers, and Jews — specifically Jews who had been imported not from Israel but from Babylonia and Mesopotamia.
What that means is that the populace featured folks presumably influenced by paganism, Greek thought, and Judaism that had been uprooted from the holy land and put through a wringer for a few centuries. It was not singly rooted anywhere, nor in anything. It was eclectic, and not in the best sense of the word. The framework would have been not to have a framework.
Kind of like us.
One can over-generalize and say that false teachers can come at Christianity in one of two ways.
1.Confrontation. They can initiate a frontal, head-on collision, trying their mightiest simply to undo Christian truth-claims. "Not that, but this" would describe this stance. Atheists, Orthodox Jews, Islam today are often of this stripe.
2.Assimilation. This approach tries more at collusion than collision. Assimilators labor to give the impression of shared common-ground, so as to make room for their bringing in what really matters to them. Mormons are attempting this today, as are many Roman Catholics. This apparently was the approach of the Judaizers in Galatia. They were not kin to apostate Jews today who would try to discredit Jesus' Messianic claims. They would affirm faith in Jesus as a terrific starting-point... and then say "here is what you really need to be fully saved."
If you think it through, you see that the Serpent utilized both approaches, in Genesis 3, starting more with the second, and ending up with the first.
The Colossian teacher was of the second variety. Piecing together what clues we have in Colossians, it does not appear that he flatly denied Jesus. I gather that from the fact that Paul did not deal with him by asserting the truthfulness, or the reality, or the qualifications of Christ.
Rather, I think his approach was to "Yes, yes of course" the whole Jesus-thing... but then, by emphasis and omission, to substitute the distinctives he brought as the real heart of the matter (according to him). Like the Colossians, he was ready to admit Jesus as important, and to affirm him as a tremendous starting-place.
Christ just wasn't enough. Having Jesus alone didn't get you all the way there. Christ wasn't everything one needs.
To get all that, you needed what the false teacher was bringing, which he would be delighted to share.
This is why Paul's pro-active response is not to stress the truthfulness of Christ, but the absolute sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Next time, Lord willing, we'll get into the specifics of the false teacher's doctrines. After that, we'll begin looking at Paul's response, in overview.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labels: Colossians studies, Dan Phillips, heresy
25 comments
Posted by DJP on Tuesday, March 02, 2010
30 January 2010
The Blind Leading the Blind Till They Both Fall in a Ditch
Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson
The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from a sermon titled "The Choice of a Leader," preached Sunday morning, 1 August 1875 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London. It sounds like Spurgeon is commenting on the meltdown of Emergent Village and the fumbling confusion that has seized some of the less radical participants in the Conversation who now want to shed their emergenting identity without shedding the postmodern bent that attracted them to the movement in the first place.
Perhaps Spurgeon was exercising the gift of prophecy. In any case, he gives good advice here: don't follow leaders who are constantly tinkering with gospel truth in an effort to keep in step with the times.
hen a man chooses a bad leader for his soul, at the end of all bad leadership there is a ditch.
A man teaches error which he declares he has drawn from Scripture, and he backs it up with texts perverted and abused. If you follow that error, and take its teacher for a leader, you may for a time be very pleased with yourself for knowing more than the poor plain people who keep to the good old way, but, mark my word, there is a ditch at the end of the error. You do not see it yet, but there it is, and into it you will fall if you continue to follow your leader.
At the end of error there is often a moral ditch, and men go down, down down, they scarce know why, till presently, having imbibed doctrinal error, their moral principles are poisoned, and like drunken men they find themselves rolling in the mire of sin.
At other times the ditch beyond a lesser error may be an altogether damnable doctrine. The first mistake was comparatively trifling, but, as it placed the mind on an inclined plane, the man descended almost as a matter of course, and almost before he knew it, found himself given over to a strong delusion to believe a lie. The blind man and his guide, whatever else they miss, will be sure to find the ditch, they need no sight to obtain an abundant entrance into that.
Alas! to fall into the ditch is easy, but how shall they be recovered? I would earnestly entreat especially professing Christians, when novelties of doctrine come up, to be very cautious how they give heed to them. I bid you remember the ditch. A small turn of the switch on the railway is the means of taking the train to the far east or to the far west: the first turn is very little indeed, but the points arrived at are remote.
There are new errors which have lately come up which your fathers knew not, with which some are mightily busy, and I have noticed when men have fallen into them their usefulness ceased. I have seen ministers go only a little way in speculative theories, and gradually glide from latitudinarianism into Socinianism or Atheism. Into these ditches thousands fall. Others are precipitated into an equally horrible pit, namely, the holding nominally of all the doctrines in theory and none of them in fact.
Men hold truths nowadays with the bowels taken out of then, and the very life and meaning torn away. There are members and ministers of evangelical denominations who do not believe evangelical doctrine, or if they do believe it they attach but little importance to it; their sermons are essays on philosophy, tinged with the gospel. They put a quarter of a grain of gospel into an Atlantic of talk, and poor souls are drenched with words to no profit. God save us from ever leaving the old gospel, or losing its spirit, and the solid comfort which it brings; yet into the ditch of lifeless profession and philosophic dreaming we may soon fall if we commit ourselves to wrong leadership.
All this should prevent us, as I think, from taking any man whatever as our leader, for if we trust to any mere man, though he may be right in ninety-nine of the hundred, he is wrong somewhere, and our tendency will be to be more influenced by his one wrong point than by any one of his right ones. Depend upon it in matters of religion that ancient malediction is abundantly verified, "Cursed is he that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm."
