Ever been called a heretic for believing that God sent His Son into the world to save the world and that Jesus will fully accomplish His purpose for dying on the cross? You probably don’t fit the biblical definition of heretic.
Since I went public with the fact that I believe in the ultimate restoration of all mankind, a number of people have said or implied that I am a heretic, and I’m sure many others think it. I would have to say that my belief does fit the dictionary definition of heresy:
Yes, the belief that God will ultimately redeem all mankind (not just the “elect” or not just those who trust Christ before they die) does go contrary to centuries of church dogma and is considered unacceptable by the majority of Christians today. So by definition I am guilty as charged.
But let’s go a little deeper. The term *heresy *is a loaded word, so let’s look very carefully at what it means, what it implies, and what our response should be. What does the Bible say about heresy? What has the word come to mean? Who is a heretic? How should such a person be treated?
The words *heresy *(Greek: hairesis) and *heretic *(Greek: hairetikos) come from a root meaning “to choose.” In the New Testament the word hairesis often refers to a religious sect or party that has separated itself from the mainstream, like the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), the party of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5; 26:5), the Nazarene sect (Acts 24:5), or the Christians (Acts 28:22).
Paul himself was part of a group deemed a “heresy”:
Paul was considered a “heretic” by the religious leaders of his day, though he believed “everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets”! And lest anyone accuse me of leaving out the rest of his words, let me be the first to quote the whole passage:
Someone might say, “Aha! He believes in the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. You don’t believe that the wicked will rise to face eternal condemnation.” No, I don’t believe that the wicked will be forever damned, but I do believe there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. I want to be the kind of “heretic” Paul was—someone who worships God as a follower of the Way, who believes everything in accordance with Scripture, who hopes in God, who looks forward to the final resurrection, and who strives to keep a clear conscience before God and man.
But sometimes the word *heresy *or *heretic *is used in a more sinister way. Paul included heresies among the acts of the flesh, which disqualify a person from inheriting the kingdom of God:
Paul also warned Titus about divisive or factious people in strong terms:
He calls such people warped and sinful and self-condemned, and told Titus to have nothing to do with them. In this context it seems that “heretics” are those who cause division in the body of Christ. Apparently they were undermining the important message that Paul was trying to emphasize in the preceding verses:
Peter also warns about false prophets and false teachers and the heresies they introduce:
These people are guilty of “denying the sovereign Lord who bought them,” following “depraved conduct,” bringing “the way of truth into disrepute,” and acting with greed and deception. This passage connects the idea of heresies with the false prophets and false teachers who introduce them, so we should also look at the biblical teaching on false prophets and teachers.
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament issues severe warnings against false prophets. Jesus said to watch out for them because they might look like sheep but inwardly they are ferocious wolves (Mt. 7:15). He said that in the endtimes many false prophets would appear and would deceive many people (Mt. 24:11). John also warned of them and told how to recognize them:
It seems that false teachers were a problem in Timothy’s church, because Paul mentions them several times in his letters to the young pastor, beginning with the opening of 1 Timothy 1:
As the introduction to 1 Timothy in the ESV Study Bible points out, “false teachers are the primary occasion for the letter,” but the exact nature of the false teaching is not identified. What really matters is the fruit:
With these passages and observations in mind, how can we identify heretics, false teachers, and false prophets? Not all of them will have all of the characteristics, but here are some red flags: divisiveness, immorality, foolish quarrels, depraved conduct, lack of love, seared conscience, arrogance, slander, selfishness, denial that Jesus has come in the flesh, denial of His work on the cross, abandonment of the faith, greed, exploitation, maliciousness, hypocrisy, deception. One tip-off as to whether a teaching is false is that it maligns the name of Christ and His work on the cross. Another is that it produces ugly fruit in one’s life.
So how can we evaluate Evangelical Universalism against the biblical understanding of heresy? I’ve already acknowledged that I fit the dictionary definition of a heretic, and I *want *to be a “heretic” in the same way that Paul was. But am I a heretic in the biblical sense of one who has departed from the faith and bears bad fruit? Judge for yourself—from what I have written, and for those who know me, by the way I live.
Like most Evangelical Universalists, I hold a very high view of Scripture, a very high view of the character of God, a very high view of the Person of Christ, a very high view of the cross, a very strong view of sin and judgment, a very strong desire to live a godly life, and a very strong desire to share the gospel. You would be hard-pressed to find anything I have written that has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. I have made every effort to base my beliefs not on my own feelings or thoughts or wishes but on God’s revealed Word. You may disagree with my interpretation, my emphasis, or how I put it all together, but you can’t deny that I have taken the Bible as my source of authority. As Robin Parry has stated (evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1523), the debate between those who hold to a traditional view of eternal damnation and those who believe that God will reconcile all to Himself “is not a debate between Bible-believing Christians (traditionalists) and ‘liberals’ (universalists). It is, to a large extent, a debate between two sets of Bible-believing Christians on how best to understand scripture.”
As Parry recognizes and as I wrote in “Heaven: We Have a Problem” (blogs.christianpost.com/ambassador-of-reconciliation/heaven-we-have-a-problem-what-does-the-bible-say-about-heaven-and-who-goes-there-7290/), there are seemingly contradictory threads in Scripture: some that seem to affirm universalism and some that seem to deny it. Those who do not think the Bible is inspired can pick and choose which ones to believe, but as Parry says, those of us who believe in the inspiration of Scripture have different ways of holding these truths in tension:
I know how to subordinate my own thoughts and desires to God’s Word; I did it for decades with respect to eternal damnation. It never felt right to me, but I learned to suck it up and just believe it because I thought you *had *to believe it in order to be faithful to Scripture. I am so thankful that I no longer need to squelch my God-given sense of reason, justice, and compassion. I still do not let my mind, my conscience, or my heart override God’s revealed truth, but now that I believe God will accomplish complete restoration of His creation, my faith has soared and my heart is at peace. If I get called a heretic for it, so be it.
The attachment has the complete text of this post with the Greek words. I originally posted this essay on christianpost.com (blogs.christianpost.com/ambassador-of-reconciliation/heretic-13971/).
Heretic.docx (30.6 KB)
