A Factious Man: Exegetical Treatment of Titus 3:10

For purposes of this article, the historical and authorial problems of Titus will be deliberately omitted. This decision is not intended to treat these discussions as unimportant, but rather to preserve the purpose of the article which is more concerned with the immediate instructions given by Paul to Titus in the specific pericope referenced in the title. The article intends to lay out a proper exegesis of Titus 3:10 in hopes that it will help churches, pastors, and elders deal with heretics and divisive persons within the visible Christian community in a Scriptural manner. First, it is certainly the case that believers, being sinners converted to Christ but yet still possessing a sin nature, may engage in heretical or divisive behavior from time to time and hence need loving correction. For the confessions says as much, “Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; (Matt. 26:70, 72, 74) and, for a time, continue therein.” Second, there are false teachers, unrepentant and unregenerate men, who have gone out into the world parading about as teachers of Christ, whose doctrine is vehemently opposed to the true gospel of grace revealed in Scripture. Both, heretics and those falling pray to heretical behavior require special attention from church leaders. God has graciously provided church leaders with clear guidance for such a task through the writings of Paul as he instructs his colleague in the ministry, Titus.


Those who hold to the view that the history of Titus fits within the Acts story would date it prior to AD 63. Those who hold to the second imprisonment theory date it somewhere between c. AD 64-67 depending on the date of Paul’s death. While Paul penned Titus for the specific purpose of summoning his colleague to meet him in Nicopolis (3:12), evidently he thought it necessary to provide some guidance around methods and procedures for governing the church at Crete over which Titus had been given responsibility. Titus was a very trusted colleague. He undertook several difficult assignments in Corinth as Paul’s representative, including both the collection (8:6) and the responsibility of dealing with the tense situation that arose between Paul and the Corinthians (7:6, 7, 13-15; 12:18). Titus’ responsibility in Crete is seen early in the letter. He was to “set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” (1:5)

Paul is concerned that qualified men be appointed to oversee and shepherd the churches in every city. These men must be above reproach, not womanizers, have believing children, not accused of living with reckless abandon or wild living, not guilty of autonomous behavior, that is refusing to be subject to authority, not stubborn and self-willed, not quick tempered ( as Herodian said, quick-tempered persons lose no time being angry, and so with those they ought not, over things they ought not, and far more than they ought), not one who drinks too much, not someone who simply wants to jump from one fight to another, not shamelessly greedy for money, but someone who is a friend or kind to strangers, a lover of good or compassionate, prudent-thoughtful-self controlled, pleasing to God, pious, having their impulses under control, having a strong attachment to the word of God. Moreover, an elder must be able to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it. These are the men Paul is looking for to the lead the churches in Crete. The problem is that many men have gone out who desire to teach and lead the churches who do not meet these criteria. Paul is concerned that many rebellious men have gone out and that these men are upsetting entire houses.

Titus has three problems on his hand in Crete. First, he has the problem of identifying qualified leaders to lead the churches in every city. Second, he has the problem of these false teachers who have gone out to teach false doctrine with debased motives. Finally, he has the problem of Cretans immoral conduct. The Cretans have problems with deception, are characterized by Paul as being vicious (evil beasts), and lazy gluttons. After covering his objectives with Titus, Paul launches into some very practical instructions for Titus and the believers in the Cretan church. Paul issues instructions for older men, older women, younger women, young men, and slaves. He points to the gospel and what a trustworthy statement it is.

The passage in question seems to represent the pinnacle of Paul’s instructions to Timothy. Removing the factious men will go a long way to purifying the leadership pool, aid in helping Titus to purify the rest of the church through sound doctrine, and refute false teachings that some in Crete may have been prone to accept. The entire letter seems to build to this crescendo in 3:10. The immediate context can be seen to begin in 3:5 as Paul encourages Titus with the words, “These things are good and profitable for men.” (3:8) The Greek particle de appearing here is used to establish a strong contrasting conjunction between what has gone before with what is about to follow.

9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο• εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι. 10 αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, 11 εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος.

One may refer back to 1:10 to identify the religious orientation of these teachers. They are “those of the circumcision.” These are Jewish men who have gone out to spread false teaching in Crete and who, based on verse 9, love to engage in stupid (foolish) controversies, genealogies, strife, and disputes about the Law. These teachings are upsetting entire houses in the churches at Crete. It is in the context of appointing elders in every city that Paul prescribes a solution. Basically he instructs Titus to recognize leaders both positively and negatively. On the positive side, appoint elders in every city while at the same time rejecting these factious, self-appointed teachers after a couple of warnings.

Verse 9 is clearly a mandate from Paul to Titus to stay out of these silly discussions or debates, primarily because they are useless and unprofitable. The word controversies means questioning or speculations. Those of us who are prone to engage in these sorts of arguments would do well to reflect upon Paul’s words and practice a bit of self examination to determine if we are guilty of ignoring them from time to time ourselves. The word avoid here means, to place around, to go around so as to avoid; to step around, to stand aside, to turn oneself about; to avoid, to shun. Paul commands Titus to stay away from such engagements because they are both useless, and futile.

Paul then makes it clear how Titus is to relate to those men who are schismatic in their behavior. It is clear that this schismatic behavior is identified in the previous verse. The men who are engaging in these foolish controversies, genealogies, strife, and disputes regarding the law are engaging in schismatic behavior. They are upsetting whole families. It is of the highest import that we understand exactly what a schismatic is not only so that we may address the issue according to Scripture, but so that we may avoid false charges against those with whom we may have doctrinal differences that are not essential to the Christian faith.

“The adjective airetico" (a NT hapax) is used here of one who has chosen to follow the false teachings and practices described in v. 9 over against the apostle, Titus, and others in the Christian community who embrace the true teaching and its good deeds.” [Knight III, George W. NIGTC: The Pastoral Epistles, 354.]

“To shun foolishness is only part of the answer (v 9). The person spreading foolishness should be confronted, and if there is no repentance, then that person should be avoided.” [Mounce, William D. WBC: Pastoral Epistles, 454.]

“The αἱρετικός*** is a person who holds sectarian opinions and promotes them in the church, thereby causing dissension in the congregation. The reference is to the kind of person described in Rom 16:17. Cf. Holtzmann, 502: ‘Within Christianity a heresy is, as the etymology indicates, a form of thinking according to an egotistical choice and inclination, associated with a tendency to separation and party spirit.’ Thus the elements of holding doctrines at variance from those of the congregation and of causing divisions over them are both present (Lock, 157).” [Marshall, I. H., & Towner, P. H. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (337). London; New York: T&T Clark International.] Calvin writes,

“for, by the term “heretic” he describes not only those who cherish and defend an erroneous or perverse doctrine, but in general all who do not yield assent to the sound doctrine which he laid down a little before.” [Calvin, John. Commentary on Titus, 341]

Yet Calvin stresses due care in this regard, saying,

“But we must exercise moderation, so as not instantly to declare every man to be a “heretic” who does not agree with our opinion.” [Ibid, 342]

“While Paul stood squarely against false teaching (1:13; 2:15), his use of the term “divisive” indicates the destructive nature of those promoting error among believers (cf. 1:11). [Lea, T. D., & Griffin, H. P. (2001). Vol. 34: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (328). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.]

“As Fee points out, “unfortunately, all too often in the church the ‘orthodox,’ in ferreting out ‘heretics’ (i.e. people who hold different views from mine), have become the divisive ones!” (211) The believer must differentiate between personal preferences and the essentials of the faith and ministry.” [Mounce, BWC: Pastoral Epistles, 455.]

By all accounts this schismatic man is engaging in the behavior condemned by Paul in v. 9. The heretic, in this context, is someone who is causing division within the church. Before you run out and begin to pronounce everyone a heretic, due care must be given to the particulars. First, what makes a heretic divisive is not simply his disagreement with Paul and Titus. It is the nature of his disagreement with them. Barnabas disagreed with Paul and he was not pronounced a heretic. Their disagreement was so sharp that they ceased working together. And yet Barnabas was never pronounced a heretic. Mere disagreement does not equal schismatic behavior. We should take care not to engage in malicious and slanderous practices by pronouncing those who have mere disagreements with us to be heretics or divisive. After all, Paul says in 3:2 that we are to malign no one. This word is the same word that is translated “blaspheme” and it means to speak about someone in a disrespectful way that demeans and denigrates them. It means to ‘hurt’ the reputation or smite with reports or words. To speak against someone in such a way as to harm or injure his or her reputation. As believers, we are commanded not to engage in such treatment of the world and certainly of one another. Hence, it follows, that great caution should be exercised before pronouncing someone as divisive, schismatic, or a heretic. It should be noted that in order for slander to be true, the behavior has to be false. In other words, a heretic cannot charge others with slander if he is guilty of divisive teachings. It is only when his teachings do not meet the standard that one runs the risk of malicious slander. This is a subtle, but very important point.

The nature of the divisiveness had little to do with opinion. The heretics in Crete were men who were causing division by refusing to submit to the authority of apostolic teaching. This can also be seen in the qualifications listed for elders in chapter one. Recall that the elder must also not be a self-willed kind of man. These teachers are certainly demonstrating that they are both rebellious and self-willed. They are refusing to submit to apostolic teaching. So one should recognize that rejection even of certain ideas that a local elder board may hold does not make one divisive. Congregants have the right to disagree with elders teachings so long as those teachings are not essential to Christian doctrine. Calvin says as much when commenting on this text,

“There are some matters on which Christians may differ from each other, without being divided into sects. Paul himself commands that they shall not be so divided, when he bids them keep their harmony unbroken, and wait for the revelation of God. (Philip. Iii. 16)

Hence one has to recognize that when the criteria are met, division in the body that leads people away from the truth of Scripture, upsetting entire families is a serious matter and should be treated seriously. Had the church been faithful in this regard, no doubt we would not see the thousands of sects that currently prevail in the Christian community. A schismatic is not one who has a disagreement with a local pastor, elder board, or even local church. For the pastor, the elder board, and the local church may be the party that has abandoned apostolic teaching. Or it may be that the local body has adopted views that are not essential to Christian doctrine. A schismatic is one who rebels against God by rejecting apostolic authority and doctrine and engages in teaching false doctrine and collecting others to set up his own sect. None of us agree entirely on everything we believe. Church leaders are in place to protect the flock from false doctrine that brings harm to them. They are not in place to stop the mouths of everyone they disagree with. Such behavior is abusive and uncharitable and takes us back to the dark ages.

How then is the factious man to be managed? Paul provides unambiguous instructions, μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ. The schismatic man is to be given two attempts to correct him. The word means, admonition or warning. It is the attempt to cause a person to correct his wrong by warning or counsel. [Rogers & Rogers, The New Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, 511]

Calvin writes, “He does not mean any “admonition” whatever, or that of a private individual, but an “admonition” given by a minister, with the public authority of the Church.” [Calvin, Commentary on Titus, 342]

There can be no question regarding the nature of the sin involved and no ambiguities regarding the nature of the admonition that is taking place. When a person’s soul is at stake, there is no room for obscurity. Love demands clarity about the offense, clarity in the instructions, clarity about the goals, and finally, clarity regarding the consequences.

“The two admonitions are obviously intended to turn such a person from his or her error, as in 2 Thess. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:25-26, and are a pastoral attempt to reclaim.” [Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 355]

The admonition is composed of both instruction and warning. Never should an offender be approached with the mere threat of punishment. Such a strategy departs from the whole concept of a shepherd going out to reclaim his straying sheep. When a child is lost from her parents, great fear is produced in the heart of the parents. Panic sets in as the parents fear for the safety of their own. This fear is produced because of the love they have for the child. But when the child is finally located, the parent does not threaten the child with discipline or punishment as a first response. The first response is love, joy, and happiness. It is after that the parent sternly warns the child never to do this again and may even exact a degree of discipline on the child for their reckless behavior. Even in the world of business, when an employer seeks to correct an employee in how they execute their duties, they do not do so by issuing one threat after another. They provide encouraging instructions and the antecedents required to carry out those instructions. With those instructions come expectations around rewards for success and consequences for failure. If a warning is necessary, it is issued in writing with a plan for improvement and usually a time frame to go along with it. This is how we influence and correct human behavior. These practices are borrowed from Christian Theism. It is the way of human behavior. At this point Paul has clearly identified the schismatic behavior, and has issued clear instructions on how to address such a person. However, there are instances when the individual creating the division does not respond to the instructions or warnings. What is Titus to do in these circumstances?

παραιτοῦ is the Greek word used here for reject. It means to purposely keep away from, to have nothing to do with. Here we see that the strategy of social ostracism is to be deployed. This harkens back to Matthew 18:15-18. If your brother sins go to him and after several attempts, if he remains obstinate, he is to be put out of the fellowship and viewed as a target of evangelism. The man who refuses to submit to apostolic teaching is to be rejected from the Christian community. Notice that it is not the man who has mere disagreements with us as if our doctrine were somehow authoritative. The man is deliberately and knowingly refusing to obey the apostolic teaching. Such a position is clearly indicative of one’s spiritual condition. This alone does not indicate that the person’s faith is disingenuous, but it does require that such a question be raised and that their behavior be monitored until it can be determined if God will grant them repentance or if they are of those who have gone out from us because they were never really of us. However, as far as the Christian community is concerned, they cannot be allowed to partake of the public table of fellowship which is limited to genuine believers. Paul says in verse 11 that such a person is perverted, sinning, and is self-condemned. That is to say that such a person is condemned as a result of his own actions.

The issue in Titus 3:10 unambiguously concerns false teachers who are spreading false doctrine throughout Crete. The remedies for this are to appoint godly elders in every city, instruct and warn those who are guilty of this behavior no less than twice, and purge them from the Christian fellowship if they refuse to submit to apostolic teaching. The division is doctrinal and is of central importance to the Christian faith. Separation over non-essentials and pronouncing people to be heretics over minor differences is to be avoided by all who desire to live according to Christian charity. The Corinthian church had several issues with division, and they were rebuked by Paul for their carnal behavior. However, Paul stopped short of pronouncing any of them a heretic and urging the community to excommunicate them. On the flip side, when a person has been found to be teaching things fundamentally contrary to apostolic teaching, the instructions are unambiguous. We do not have the authority to permit people in the churches to instruct believers contrary to the apostolic teaching.

The Heart of Conflict

So we all experience it on a regular basis whether we want to admit it or not. Conflict. What is it and where does it come from? Why can't we live without conflict? Remember the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?" Well? Why can't we all just get along? Why is it that we experience conflict at home, at work, and even in our churches? The reason is really quite simple: sin. We ALL have hearts that are prone to idolatry. We desire to run our own life our own way. We want to have our proverbial cake and eat it too. We think our opinions are more important than the opinions of others. Our boss thinks our work was substandard while we think it was impeccable.

We live in a culture that has become more and more averse to confrontation. But in a fallen world, is such an aspiration wise or even possible? I think it is not. Sin makes conflict unavoidable. Any idea that postulates that conflict can be erased from the scene of every day living is seriously detached from reality. Conflict is a fact of life just as much as death itself. It is impossible to live life for very long without some sort of conflict arising. If this is true, then the question arises, "how do we deal with conflict?" In order to deal with conflict, we must first have a firm handle on the heart of conflict. The heart of conflict is the human heart. The human heart, in its fallen condition is the heart of all human conflict. One desire is placed over against another desire and conflict is born. James says, "What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?" (James 4:1) There you have it. Read the entire 4th chapter of James for an more thorough understanding of the cause of conflict. Doing so will help you understand why you may be experiencing the frustration you are.

Conflict is the direct result of our own personal lusts or desires. These desires may be unholy or holy. That is not the point. The point is that conflict is produced by competing desires within us and within the body of Christ. In order to determine whether or not you are sinning, you must examine, as honestly as you can, the nature of your desire. This requires a great deal of personal honesty. Don't lie to yourself. You know why you desire the things you do. First, if your desire contradicts God's clearly revealed will in Scripture, then your desire is sinful. You can stop there. The examination process need go no further. You are in sin any time your desire contradicts God's revealed desires. But there are times when that is not the case. Sometimes your desires and God's desires are the same. For instance, you may desire that your spouse communicate with your more openly. Or you may desire that your church remain faithful to Scripture in certain areas. And you may note that things in those areas are not going as desired. Now you must decide how to respond. Either way, your response must take into account God's sovereign control over all things. Joseph was cast into prison unjustly, against God's character, and still it was firmly within God's design. Joseph was responsible for responding rightly. This is just as true for you and I today. Even when we are catching the worst of it, when our desires are clearly biblical, and still we experience terrible disappointments, our main concern must be with the godliness of our response to the situation.

Churches split and are torn apart because people have conflict. Most of the time, the conflict involves sin on both sides. In some instances, it involves sin on the part of individuals. In some cases, leadership within the church is in the wrong. I know. Blasphemy you say. Some church leaders would have you believe that they are above being charged with sin or error. I know, I have experienced that first hand. How dare you accuse a pastor of sin, I heard. Really? Are we serious? Do we really think that a pastor or elders are somehow different than the rest of us sinners? Aren't pastors and elders just as dependent on grace as the rest of us? Are those who fill these offices not the same "kind" of sinners we all are? Okay, while most of you can see the stupidity of such thinking, that doesn't seem to be as apparent to some. So conflict is the result of unmet desires on the part of EVERYONE within the church. No one is exempt. What is the answer? The answer is in searching your heart first and foremost to make sure that your desire is in accord with God's word. In the process, be honest with yourself. Why do you REALLY want what it is you want. Secondly, be willing to accept the fact that you may not get your way because God may have decreed otherwise. Accept God's sovereign control over the situation. Finally, above all else, no matter what else happens, LOVE your fellow brother and sister in Christ. Regardless of the nature of the conflict, NOTHING is more important than Christian charity. Do not allow your desires to cause you to engage in hateful or unloving behavior toward those with whom you disagree. Manage your emotions. Do not allow your emotions to manage you.

Three Reasons to Choose Biblical Counseling

Produced in collaboration with Craig Day of Caleb Ministries

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:26-29 KJV)


Pastors who engage in counseling or refer congregants to a counselor should have two basic reasons for doing so. First and foremost, they should be interested in the spiritual validation of the congregant. In other words, they are seeking to discover fruit meet for repentance. They want to know that this person has a genuine relationship with Christ. If the person does not know Christ, then the prescription is readily apparent; they need to repent and follow Christ. In addition to this, and no less important, they are interested in the sanctification of the congregant. Specifically, they want this person to grow spiritually. As a pastor, your number one goal is to produce spiritual growth in your congregation. Few things afford the kind of opportunity for spiritual growth as Biblical counseling. Prudent pastors recognize this and take every advantage of this wonder ministry to help believers in their care to grow in their knowledge of and sanctification in Christ.

Pastor when you refer a congregant to a counselor, you have not delegated to another, the responsibility God has placed on you for the spiritual well-being of that person. In fact, it is precisely the spiritual well-being of that person that the counselor must be concerned to treat. “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.”(Hebrews 13:17) “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1) As a pastor, God will hold you responsible for engaging in His prescribed behaviors that are necessary to provide the guidance and support believers require to progress along their spiritual journey. Moreover, this support should help Christians grow in their sanctification and develop spiritually healthy lives that reflect the gracious work of the Holy Spirit in their heart. This is the fundamental duty of the shepherd/pastor/elder. If this duty were eliminated, the pastorate would be insignificant, unnecessary, and quite frankly, obsolete. The office of pastor was ordained in the body of Christ to equip the saints for service, to build people up, to move us to unity in faith, to help us mature spiritually, to protect us from false doctrines that are destructive to our spiritual well-being. (Eph. 4:11-14) Hence it follows that if you, the pastor, aren’t spending the majority of your time engaging in these activities, you are likely spending your time indiscreetly. For this reason, it is extremely important that pastors are absolutely certain their goals are compatible with the counseling team’s goals (and vice versa) prior to referring congregants for counseling.

Three Reasons for Biblical Counseling

1. Biblical counseling discovers the right diagnosis

2. Biblical counseling reaches the right destination

3. Biblical counseling produces true discipleship

Discovers the Right Diagnosis

It is impossible to provide sound counsel to someone if you are not able to correctly diagnose their problem. Oftentimes what looks like a problem in reality, is really the symptom of a problem or the indirect result of another problem lurking just under the surface. How does psychology and Christianity differ in their diagnosis of various life problems? Psychology does not tie human behavior to how one thinks about the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and how that sovereignty is worked out providentially in our lives. Psychology views life problems as random events we all have deal with. Things just happen. Notwithstanding, Christian counseling seeks to help the believer understand that oftentimes, our problem is that we are not thinking biblically about God, his sovereign control over creation, our role as His subjects, and the fact that He is the author of the circumstances in our life and that the circumstances are designed by Him for His glory and our good. Our spiritual growth is indelibly connected to how we respond to unrealized expectations in relationships and circumstances. Moreover, the very barometer for one’s spiritual well-being is how they respond to these unrealized expectations, or perceived unmet needs. If psychology is occupied with locating the cause of our problems elsewhere, as the proverb says, it begins an inch off the mark and has no chance of ending but 1,000 miles off target.

It follows that attempting to integrate psychological method with Biblical counseling in diagnosing life-problems is ineffective and unnecessary. Psychology contends that life-problems are the result of genetic and physiological factors, social and environmental factors, or the social milieu of the individual. Biblical counseling focuses entirely on our sinful responses to these factors as the real culprit of the problem and not the factors themselves. In fact, Biblical counseling contends that God deliberately placed us in the particular lot we find ourselves in for his glory and our good. Our primary concern as Christians is to glorify God in how we relate and respond to those circumstances. Psychology fails to take such concerns into account. Healthy living begins with healthy thinking. Apart from thinking God’s thoughts after Him, and recognizing His supreme control, healthy thinking will always prove evasive. And if healthy thinking is not achieved, counselees are unlikely to realize healthy living. If you help your congregant think biblically, it may drastically reduce the number of life problems they perceive over the course of their lives. But if every life problem is treated as one more random, preventable event that needs remediation, a vicious cycle of dependency could be the result. And that is spiritually, mentally, and emotionally unhealthy. It follows that if Scripture is completely sufficient for life and godliness, and that it is the goal of the pastor as well, then introducing methods outside of Scripture run the risk of diminishing, not enhancing, the effectiveness of counseling.

Reaches the Right Destination

Psychology seeks to help human beings find meaning, purpose, and fulfillment in life outside of God. Psychology is entirely focused on ‘self.’ Psychology has no interest in helping man arrive at proper thinking about God, creation, man, and how one may conform to the image of Christ. Psychology’s fundamental presupposition is that humanistic reasoning is adequate to address man’s spiritual problems and faith in a supernatural being is unnecessary. The goals of psychology focus on things like self-esteem, love, acceptance, and feeling significant. Biblical discipleship or Biblical counseling on the other hand, has different aspirations – holiness . “Therefore I urge you brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2) The chief end of every human is to fear God and keep his commandments. This is the whole duty of man. What that looks like today is living a life that is being transformed by right thinking about God and all that God has to say about who and what He is, creation, life, and humanity. In short, it looks like a life that is attempting to mimic the life of Christ as revealed to us through Holy Writ. The goal of Christian counseling is transformation. But what does this transformation look like? Counselees are advised to transform from their present state into a desired state. They need help understanding what the desired state looks like. God, who is Lord over all creation, has revealed this desired state to us in Scripture through the incarnation of Christ. Moreover, God’s self-disclosure in Scripture provides specific direction for counselors and counselees alike, not only on what the desired state looks like, but how to achieve it.

The destination of Biblical counseling as opposed to secular psychology is Christian conversion and/or spiritual growth. Nothing is more suited to this end than the revelation of Scripture. Humanistic psychology has no interest in God, conversion, or sanctification of believers in Christ. In fact, most of the proponents of modern psychology are not only dispassionate about God, many of them are outright hostile to God. The unbeliever suppresses the truth of God and exchanges it for a lie. (Rom. 1:25) In fact, it could be said that no one is even dispassionate about God, but that all who are not a friend of God are enemies of God. (Matt. 6:24) When it comes to religious knowledge, there is no such thing as neutral ground. Those who attempt to merge psychology with Biblical Counseling make a grave mistake by thinking that such neutrality exists. Scripture unambiguously and unequivocally teaches that it does not!

Produces True Discipleship

Once you understand what issues are confronting the counselee, that is to say you have made the right diagnosis of their present condition, and you have determined the right destination, you are now in a position to come up with a plan for how they can reach that destination. We call this plan, discipleship. Jesus said, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” (Matt. 28:19) Pastor, you are not in the business of professional secular counseling. You are in the business of making disciples. In my secular work we have what we call a professional development plan. In the kingdom of God, Biblical counseling is what we might call a discipleship development plan. The Greek word for disciple is mathetes.

Being a disciple of Christ means the unconditional surrender and sacrifice of the whole life of the individual. This means every part of the human person is given over wholly to God. The intellect, the emotion, and the will are now captive to the Master-Teacher. Jesus said anyone who loves mother, father, daughter or son more than me is not worthy to be his disciple (Matt. 10:37-39) What does that look like? Anytime pleasing someone else, including oneself, becomes more important to a person than pleasing God, serious examination of the Master-disciple relationship is in order. There are times when we have lapses in this goal. And it is precisely to this end that Biblical counseling is designed to address. Lapses in behavior are one thing, but patterns of thinking that determine patterns of life that reflect overt disobedience to God’s expressed will is a different matter altogether.

Pastors are in the business of making and training disciples, from among whom, some will go out to make and train more disciples. In short, pastors are in the business of advancing the kingdom of God through discipleship. It would be a mistake for you to think that your end goal is to “fix a person.” That is the secular mindset. That is the aim of psychology. Psychology is not the least bit interested in the advancement of the kingdom of God. Biblical counseling understands that its true cause and ultimate purpose is the advancement of the kingdom of God through meaningful discipleship.

Pastors are looking for change. Specifically the change they are seeking is biblical change. Moreover, biblical change equals Christ-likeness. We are to be transformed into the image of Christ and we do this through discipleship in the church. In brief, pastors are looking for the kind of Christ-like change that brings glory to God. This is exactly the aim of Biblical counseling and this is what sets it apart from psychology and other methods that may attempt to integrate psychology into “Christian” counseling.

Biblical counseling asserts that God is the designer of all human life and that He has given us all things pertaining to life and godliness and that these things are revealed to us in His word. “Seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.” (2 Peter 1:3) Biblical counseling contends that Scripture alone is sufficient and as such is the sole authority for helping believers address all matters pertaining to life and godliness. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16)

CONCLUSION

Pastor, as a shepherd leader before you even start a sermon, project, goal, or church initiative, you should understand what you want the end state to look like. Doing so will help you devise a plan or road map to get there. In counseling and discipleship, the same holds true. It is critically important that the counselor and counselee know the desired state, the present state, and what the road map between the two looks like. It is here that Christian counseling is quite distinct from psychology because it has a unique starting point, a unique road map, and an entirely unique objective. Before referring their congregants to a counseling team, pastors should be familiar with the philosophies and methods that team employees as it seeks to help people move from where they are to where they should be and how that journey will progress along the way. Paul says, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:14-15)

The Goal of Counseling and the responsibility of pastors within Christianity is spiritual growth. Moreover, the only source given by God for true spiritual growth is the Bible, properly exposited through preaching teaching, counseling, and personal study. Consequently it follows that Biblical counseling is sufficient to produce effective spiritual growth and as a result healthy living within the Christian community. If I were to ask you, pastor, to give me the details of your discipleship development plan in your church and how you execute on that plan, would you be able to launch into an intimate explanation of deliberate actions you have taken as a pastor to install and supervise such a process? If I were to ask you if you are aware of the philosophies of those to whom you refer members for counseling and discipleship, would you be able to answer? Perhaps its time for some due diligence around a discipleship development plan and a review of any outside counseling services you currently use. Technically, you should conduct such reviews no less than annually to make sure there are no unexpected philosophical shifts taking place. This is extremely healthy for you and your congregation.

Notes
Carl Jung, wrote, "The psychologist, in as much as he assumes a scientific attitude, has to disregard the claim of every creed to be the unique and eternal truth...he is concerned with the original religious experience quite apart from what the creeds have made of it." [The Teachings of Carl Jung]



Based on key presuppositions centered around the inherently good "inner nature" of man, he draws this conclusion and stakes his claim:


"Observe that if these assumptions are proven true, they promise a scientific ethics, a natural value system, a court of ultimate appeal for the determination of good and bad, of right and wrong. The more we learn about man's natural tendencies, the easier it will be to tell him how to be good, how to be happy, how to be fruitful, how to respect himself, how to love, how to fulfill his highest potentialities." [Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, p.4]


Freud hated Christianity and made every effort to launch attacks on its central teachings and practices, supposing that he could "explain" religion by means of his psychoanalytic theory. Freud is described as a "convinced, consistent, aggressive atheist" who considered himself as "godless Jew." [Exposing the Roots – Freudian Frauds, Christian Discernment Ministries]


The Greek word for disciple is mathetes. In Koine Greek, a disciple was one who was a student, or an apprentice; one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of views. Mathetes always implies the existence of a personal attachment which shapes the whole life of the one described as mathetes, and which in its particularity leaves no doubt as to who is deploying the formative power. [Kittel] A man is called a mathetes when he binds himself to someone else in order to acquire his practical and theoretical knowledge. [ W. Bauder in NIDNTT] The almost technical sense of the word, which implies a direct dependence of the one under instruction upon an authority superior in knowledge, and which emphasises (sic) the fact that his relation cannot be dissolved, controls the whole usage, no matter whether the reference is to the winning of technical or academic information and skill. [Kittel] There also appears a definite kinship between the Greek mathetes and the Hebrew talmid. The linguistic kinship is confirmed by the fact that the Rabbinate itself spoke of the Talmidim of Jesus. [Kittel] W. Bauder comments, “Therefore learning means primarily that the talmid appropriates the knowledge of his teacher and examines it critically by comparing it against the Torah. Moreover, learning means the process by which the past experience of the love of God is translated by the learners into obedience to the Torah of God (cf. Deut. 4:14) [Bauder]

DOKIMADZETE THE SPIRITS - 1 John 4:1

It is commonly held that the apostle John was dealing with a very specific heresy related to early Gnosticism when he penned his manuscript late in the first century. And the evidence for this view is very strong. For the sake of argument, we will assume that John was in fact dealing with this heresy and therefore, when we read his letter, we will look through that grid. As we approach this pericope, we observe a sobering call to his audience that they are not to believe every spirit, but rather, they are to test them to see if they are of God. The very existence of this commandment presupposes the fact of absolute truth. Otherwise, why would we bother to test the truthfulness of something if truth doesn’t exist? Moreover, this commandment also precludes an agnostic approach to truth. For, it must be said, how can we even begin to determine the truthfulness of a teaching if we are not able to really know the truth? Hence, we can deduce from John’s commandment the metaphysical reality of truth. Not only this, but we can also presuppose the epistemological preconditions necessary for knowing truth. In one sentence the apostle John debunks skepticism and agnosticism as plausible positions relating to the existence of truth. In addition, we can conclude, based on the language of this text, and that not only does truth exist, and not only is it knowable, but it is apparently important for us to become familiar with it.


The Greek word DOKIMADZETE appears some twenty-two times in the Greek New Testament. This makes it well-attested. John is primarily concerned with false teachings invading the church leading to radical misunderstandings in the nature of the person of Jesus Christ, not to mention the practical impacts these teachings are having in the believing community. In short, this teaching is leading to overt heresy in doctrine, and to either extreme legalism or antinomianism in daily living. It seems to me that for John, doctrine mattered. Antinomianism is a word used to describe living without law. It means that Christians were completely ignoring the Christian ethic in their daily behavior. All three of these results were clearly unacceptable in John’s view and he condemns each one in its own right. It is this condition that leads John to urge these believers to be more discerning in their thinking. In other words, John commands these Christians to be critical thinkers. I have written about this recently. Critical thinking goes as far back as the existence of mankind, primarily because it originates in the very nature of God. He created us to be critical thinkers. Hence, John is calling on these believers to engage in this practice so that they can counter teachings that lead to contrary views of Christ and behavior that is antithetical to the Christian ethic.

DOKIMADZETE means to make a critical examination of something; to determine genuineness; to put to the test; examine. John, in dealing with an early form of Gnosticism, was urging the Christian community to test these ideas that were being postulated by these false Gnostic teachers. The fundamental proposition: everything that is of this natural world is evil. Fleshly bodies are of this natural world. Therefore all flesh is evil. The consequences of this view on Christology: Jesus Christ was God, and entirely good, therefore He could not have come in the flesh. He only appeared to be in fleshly form, but in actuality was here in spirit form. The consequences of this view on Christian praxis: legalism in the sense that anything that brings pleasure to the flesh is sinful and must be prohibited. Alternatively, antinomianism, in the sense that we cannot escape the flesh, therefore we will serve God with our spirits and with our flesh we will do whatever pleases us since we cannot escape the evil flesh after all. In other words, every Gnostic held a heretical view of Christ. Moreover, they were either extreme legalists or extreme libertarians. Suffice it to say that for John, Gnosticism posed a serious threat to the Christian worldview and he had to act with urgency to counter this ungodly philosophy. His response was to mandate a standard of critical thinking for every believer in the faith community. This would provide the kind of defense he was hoping for. But this was not just any critical thinking. It was distinctly Christian in nature. This was reformed critical thinking. Critical thinking necessarily brings a standard with it by which all propositions are critically examined and evaluated to determine the truthfulness of their content. It is only if the standard of critical thinking is God’s standard that such thinking can be deemed successful. Paul said it this way, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor. 10:5)

The Greek word dokimadzete appears 22 times in the NT. The word was used by Christ to rebuke the religious of his day for not being able to discern the times (Lu. 12:56) and in a parable when one man excused himself from following Christ because he had just purchased oxen and he want to try them out. (Lu. 14:19) Peter and John use the word one time respectively. The remainder of usage is located in the writings of Paul. Alice Paul even uses it to admonish the believers in Corinth to test themselves in order to see if they are in the faith. In another instance, the Corinthian believers are instructed whomever they approve among themselves to carry the offering to Jerusalem. Nowhere in the NT is this word ever used in the context of testing the genuineness of another’s faith. It is used in the context of sending monetary gifts. (1 Cor. 16::3) It is used in the context of service. (2 Cor. 8:22) It is used for those who are to be ordained as deacons. (1 Tim. 3:10) Never is the word used to say that we can actually discern the genuineness of another person’s faith in Christ. The only safe way for us to ever draw conclusions about the genuineness of another person’s faith is the process of biblical correction outlined in Matthew 18.

Two things emerge here as John urges the believing community to test the spirits because of the prevalence of false doctrine. The first is that we are to examine every teaching in light of Scripture to determine if it is true or false. The existence of this mandate signifies that the practice of careful examination of doctrinal instruction is important. Those who contend that doctrine really isn’t important are left with some explaining to do regarding John’s mandate. If doctrine isn’t important, then why does John command us to carefully examine every single spirit? Why is John so concerned about false prophets if true doctrine really isn’t important?

Practice is built on theology. People practice what they actually believe. Therefore, practice is also open for critical examination. If your church practices something that isn’t biblical or worse, that seems to contradict Scripture, you have a duty to question it after careful examination in light of Scripture. You do not have the luxury that so many in Western cultures desire to have or simply shrugging your shoulders and convincing yourself it isn’t any of your business. God made it your business. God made it all our business. Refuse to carefully examine everything and speak up when you see injustice or false doctrine and you and I will be answering to God for such lazy cowardice.

Finally, the one thing we do well, that we really should not do well is to convince ourselves that we can determine when someone’s faith is genuine. I know of a case where a pastor told a young man that he thought the young man was lost even though the young man had not been through any steps of the corrective process outlined in Matthew 18. I know of people who think they are so spiritual that they can discern the motives of other Christians. I know Christians who think they can discern the heart and intent of others either because they are just that good or because they have mystical gifts that others do not seem to possess. If we spent half the energy investigating the word of God and loving one another as we do judging each other, the church would still be turning the world upside down.

The only time an apostle instructs us to test the salvation of someone else it is our own salvation that is the object of such scrutiny. It is never the salvation of another. Jesus said, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” He said by your standard of measure, it will be measured back to you. He went on to say, “Why do you look at the speck in your brothers eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Augustine comments here, “we are taught nothing else, but that in the case of those actions respecting which it is doubtful with what intention they are done, we are to put the better construction on them.” [Morris, Leon. PNTC Matthew, 164]

Calvin comments, “These words of Christ do not contain an absolute prohibition from judging, but are intended to cure a disease, which appears to be natural to us all. We see how all flatter themselves and every man asses a severe censure on others. This vise is attested by some strange enjoyment: for there is hardly any person who is not tickled with the desire of inquiring into other people’s faults…This depraved eagerness for biting, censuring, and slandering, is restrained by Christ, when he says Judge not…In like manner, our Lord means, that there will be no want of executioners to punish the injustice and slander of men with equal bitterness or severity. And if men shall fail to receive punishment in this world, those who have shown undue eagerness in condemning their brethren will not escape the judgment of God.” [Calvin, John. Harmony of the Evangelists, 346-347]

Balance is indeed difficult to maintain in a fallen world filled with people who possess a sin nature. We distort, contort, twist, ignore, destroy, and abandon God’s instructions and mandates at just about every turn. We refuse to examine doctrine critically, preferring to believe that doctrine isn’t important. At the other extreme, we subject one another to the most painful of critical examinations, calling one another’s very faith into question as if we had the ability and the right to engage in such practices. I know of one incident where a pastor said to one of his members, “if someone accused me of not being saved the way that I just accused you of not being saved, I would fall down on my knees in tears.” Does anyone understand the arrogance and pride necessary for a person to think this highly of themselves? Unfortunately for that pastor, the man he said this too was a mature believer who had spent years in the word. And fortunately for that man, he had enough of God’s word in him that he recognized the foolishness of such a statement right away even though it came out of the mouth of a pastor. Indeed, we are all sinners and this makes discernment with the aid of the Holy Spirit and the standard being God’s word, critical. At the same time, it means that we must avoid the sinful desire to tear one another to shreds when someone dares to violate our personal standards of right and wrong.

The Biblical Paradigm for Individual and Corporate Sanctification – Part III

Church Discipline in Context – Repentance and Forgiveness

Matthew 18:1-35

You have embarked on biblical correction. You went to your sinning brother or sister as the case may be and you confronted them with their sin. Somewhere in the process, either after step one or perhaps even after being excommunicated, the individual repents. How do we respond to their repentance? In the last post we talked about the conditions necessary to engage in the process of biblical correction. They were humility and value which are both borne out of love for God and love for our brother. We talked about how we tend not to be so humble, having a higher opinion of ourselves than we should. Moreover, we talked about how we sinfully devalue someone who has sinned and is in need of correction. Jesus corrected both of these sinful tendencies as a necessary precondition to rightly execute loving, biblical discipline. But we are not finished. We now have to deal with our sinful attitudes after the fact. You see, not only do we tend to judge, criticize and condemn those who need correction unjustly and in an unloving manner, we also tend to withhold forgiveness in a number of different ways. And the remainder of Matthew 18 deals with this fact. Our question is how do we know someone has really repented of their sin? This was the basis of Peter’s question: “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?” This is a question borne directly from the sinful nature. We are a self-righteous lot and it shows in more ways than one. This is the subject of today’s post.

Peter’s question is one that we still ask today when dealing with church discipline. Somehow, we think we are in charge of forgiveness when it comes to biblical correction. The reason for this may be the power that is invested in the church in v. 18: “Whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Indeed the church has been granted to eyes of forgiveness, but not the power. She can see and declare. But she is not free to determine who is forgiven and who is not. She has been given strict guidelines for whom she is to declare forgiven and who has not been. At bottom, the church is to declare those whom Christ says is forgiven, as forgiven, and those whom Christ says are to be treated as Gentiles, to be treated as Gentiles. But what the church is tempted to do, as she is filled with sinning Christians, is to set up some system of requirements that are designed to “prove” repentance before forgiveness is extended. This is unfortunate and regrettable. Our model of forgiveness must follow God’s model. This is where much abuse takes place. Hence, this whole thinking process is exactly what inspired Peter to ask his question about forgiveness.

“Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?” Jesus’ answer was not designed to quantify this for Peter so that Peter could come up with a formula. Isn’t that how we think? Once you cross the line, that’s it. You are done! Jesus’ answer was that, like God’s forgiveness of you, your forgiveness of others must be unlimited. Luke records it this way, “And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times saying, I repent, forgive him.” (Luke 17:4) But we certainly do not like this system. We demand some form of payment as proof that the individual has genuinely repented! Such proof is not ours to demand. Payment for sin was made by God to God for us. It was not made to us. This is exactly where the concept of penance comes from. We want proof! And here is the rub: what is it in us that really wants proof? Search your heart O sinner and understand why you want this proof! Is it really out of love for this sinning brother? Is it really out of a genuine desire for the purity of the church? Or, could it be that you demand proof for your own satisfaction. Is there a desire, even a slight desire, for retribution and punishment. Bring forth fruit that demonstrates repentance is important. But it takes time. What then should be your attitude? Calvin comments on this struggle,

“And this is what I have formerly remarked, that in this passage Christ does not only speak of injuries which have been done to us, but of every kind of offences; for he desires that, by our compassion, we shall raise up those who have fallen. This doctrine is very necessary, because naturally almost all of us are peevish beyond measure; and Satan, under the pretence of severity, drives us to cruel rigour, so that wretched men, to whom pardon is refused, are swallowed up by grief and despair.” [Calvin, John. Matthew, 365]

That is simple. You forgive and pray for your brother and treat him with the same love and respect you do every other believer. Notice Calvin's use of the word compassion. Biblical correction must be an act of heartfelt compassion. Otherwise, we end up engaging in the cruel rigour, and driving people to grief and despair. Heart examintion should be sober and deliberate prior to engaging in such practices. If all you want to do is indict and finger point and prove that someone sinned, your motives are laced with the wickedness of Satan and of the sinful flesh. Such approach to discipline is antithetical to Christ's mandate and not at all indicative of Christian charity. Here is the thing; sin is a heart issue. If this person is an unbeliever, time will bear that out. They will go out from you in all likelihood. There is a chance they may remain with you and live in secret sin for the rest of their lives. God will deal with that. It is not your place to walk around worrying about ferreting out every hypocrite you can find. There is will always be hypocrites in the church. Follow Christ’s instructions here and you will be fine. It is when you want to cut corners or add complexities that you run into problems. And that is our sin nature doing what the sin nature does best.

Jesus said on two occasions about forgiveness that if we do not extend forgiveness to others, our heavenly Father will not extend forgiveness to us. Someone once said we are never more like God than when are forgiving each other and we are never more unlike God than when we are not. Jesus follows Peter’s question with a second parable. The parable of the unjust slaved is an excellent illustration on the seriousness of unforgiveness. This is the third component of biblical correction. The first two were humility and value, and now we come to forgiveness. Those who have to engage in biblical correction, (and that will likely be everyone who is a Christian in time) must also possess an attitude of humility, value others, and a forgiving heart. These are the true marks of a Christian.

Jesus finishes this chapter with a parable that illustrates what Christian forgiveness really looks like. He wants there to be no ambiguity around Christian forgiveness. He tells us the story of a slave who could not meet his debt. The master of this slave ordered that the slave, his wife and children, and all his possessions be sold in order to settle the debt. Sound familiar? Did you have a debt with God that you could not pay? The slave fell prostrate and begged for patience and mercy from the master. The lord of that slave felt compassion for him and released him of his debt. His debt was so high that all he had was to be sold in order to settle it. That slave in turn, went out and found a fellow slave who owed him 100 days wages and refused to do the same. He threw the man in jail for three months salary. The unjust slave was unwilling to extend the same patience with his fellow slave as his lord (a non-slave) extended to him. Do we not do this to one another? God has forgiven us of so much, but we cannot forgive each other of the smallest things. The point here is that this slave was not free not to forgive in the first place. Second, if he was a recipient of mercy himself, who was he to not be the dispenser of mercy when the chance presented itself? Such unjust and hypocritical behavior is entirely out of step with Christianity.

The lord of this unjust slave heard of this mistreatment and had the slave handed over to the torturers until he repaid all that he owed. This slave was described as wicked because of his unforgiveness. His lord said to him, “Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?” And so we should. Remember that the process of discipline is given in the context of humility, value, the lost sheep, and forgiveness. Out of 35 verses in Matthew 18, Jesus spends 4 on the process of church discipline and the rest on the attitudes for church discipline. Jesus sums this parable up by saying, “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

Forgiveness is extended, conditioned on the person’s repentance. It is sometimes in this condition that we get ourselves in trouble. Repentance is something that is immediately only known by God because only God knows the heart. But repentance is followed by steady improvement in the person’s behavior. We do not withhold forgiveness until we see this steady improvement ourselves. We take the individual at his or her word (Lu. 17:4) and provide gentle care over the course of time in an attempt to raise the person who has fallen up. Calvin comments, It must be observed that, when any man, through his light and unsteady behaviour, has exposed himself to suspicion, we may grant pardon when he asked it; and yet may do so in such a manner as to watch over his conduct for the future, that our forbearance and meekness, which proceed from the Spirit of Christ, may not become the subject of his ridicule. For we must observe the design of the our Lord himself, that we ought, by our gentleness, to assist those who have fallen to rise again.” [Calvin, John. Matthew. 366]

Repentance is a change of heart that can be viewed in a change of action. This action could be immediate or it could take some time to demonstrate. One example would be a couple who are living together outside of marriage. Repentance for this couple could be seen immediately in the couple’s decision to either get marriage or move into separate dwellings. That is repentance. It would not be possible for this couple to repent and still live together. That is precisely what repentance is not! Such an expectation is biblical and reasonable. Perhaps you have a married couple who are separated or have even divorced without biblical justification. What does repentance look like for them? Repentance means an end to the separation and the restoration of the couple living together under one roof. In the case of unbiblical divorce, repentance means remarriage so long as both of them are still living and have not remarried. (1 Cor. 7:11) Anything short of this is not biblical repentance. It reflects a rebellious heart that seeks to live apart from the law of Christ. Care must be taken not to cross the line from biblical repentance to man-centered penance. We cannot require community service, or have someone go back to everyone they have ever offended over the course of their lives in order to demonstrate true repentance. Let’s say you have someone who has cheated people repeatedly in business. This person’s behavior carries over into their Christian walk in the beginning. It is pointed out by a fellow believer and the businessman desire to repent. He should make restitution where possible within reason. Is he required to go back over all the years he has cheated others and bankrupt himself in order to demonstrate repentance? Of course he is not required to do such non-sense. Even if he did, this does not ensure true repentance. This is an outward activity that anyone could do. The best indication of repentance is that his current sinful lifestyle changes going forward and his cheating ways come to an abrupt end. All his future dealings are above board. This may take some time, but you extend forgiveness initially and then watch his behavior to see if his behavior matches his profession of repentance. You expect that it will and respond appropriately when it doesn’t. There will be relapses into sin because we all have a sin nature. Great care and patience must always be coupled with gentle accountability.

This is the biblical paradigm for sanctification. It rests on the foundation of love for God and love for our neighbor. The three components mentioned are humility, value, and forgiveness. Our motivation is to glorify God with our lives in all that we do. That goal begins with loving God and loving our brother enough to go to them, humbly, valuing them, and confront them with the single goal of restoration at the center of our action. We are sworn to help one another walk the sanctified life. That is what biblical confrontation is all about. And if the individual proves themselves to be an unbeliever, we are sworn to preserve the purity of the church above friendships with those who prove to be pseudo Christians. It is never easy to watch someone we care about refuse to respond to loving correction. It is extremely difficult to set there and listen to their name read in public as one who refuses to submit to God’s word. The emotions rage within and we are tempted to run from such unpleasant circumstances. On the flip side, some of us take a disliking to a person and do all we can to run them out of the church. Our goals for discipline are to see them vanquished from our midst for whatever reason. We gravel in the thought of getting rid of them. The refusal to engage in biblical correction and the eagerness to engage in it incorrectly or for all the wrong reasons represent unacceptable perversions of Christ’s mandate on the subject. Like everything other mandate in Scripture, it is not our place to decide if we will obey it or ignore it. Like any good disciple would do, we must decide to engage in biblical discipline, adhering to the spirit and the steps outlined Christ in Matthew 18. By doing so, we love our Lord and Master, and we love one another. By rejecting this teaching, we love neither our Lord, nor our brother.

Abortion, Christianity, and Moral Schizophrenia

By now, most of you are aware of the infamous Philadelphia Women’s Clinic presided over by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Prosecutors blamed "a complete regulatory collapse" for allowing Gosnell's routine late-term abortions for poor women, mostly minorities. They described a "house of horrors," with discarded fetuses, bloody floors and furniture, dismembered baby parts stored in jars and staff with little or no training acting as doctors and nurses. [Mark Scolforo, AP] The article cites that two women died and seven murdered babies serve as the basis of Gosnell’s indictment. At his arraignment, Gosnell said that he did not understand why he was being charged with murder. I suppose most people who read his remarks probably shutter in total confusion at how an educated man could fail to understand why he is being charged with murder. But I completely understand his confusion. The truth is that there have been a lot more than just seven babies murdered here. Who knows how many have been murdered. The fact is that re-locating a baby from one place to another does not make killing it any less an act of murder. And that is where the confusion rests. Moving that baby from inside the mother to outside the mother does not make the taking of an infant’s life any less vile. And we fall into a trap when we respond with greater outrage in cases like this. It betrays a double standard that lies just beneath the surface of our convictions. You see, when we are more repulsed at this killing than we are at Gosnell’s daily killing via abortion, it reveals that perhaps we don’t see abortion as the same kind of murder as killing a child outside the womb. And that, my friends, is quite disturbing.


According to the grand jury report, http://media.philly.com/documents/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf Gosnell severed the spinal cords of living, breathing babies born outside their mother’s womb on multiple occasions. I will not go into the gruesome acts that Gosnell and his cohort of murders committed. If you want to see the raw truth simply follow the link to the grand jury report. What I find disturbing about the reaction of the media is the double standard. It is amazing that those of us in the reformed camp still have to debate with Arminians and Catholics about the noetic effects of sin on the human mind. Just read how people think and the evidence speaks for itself. Americans claim to be enlightened, sophisticated, and cultured. Yet, they can argue that it isn’t butchery when only a baby’s head is out of the vagina and scissors are jabbed into the back of the skull so it’s brains can be sucked out, but it is butchery if the entire baby is out of the womb. Only the doctrine of total depravity can account for such irrationality. No other theory I know of even comes close to having explanatory power in this situation. Abortion is murder. Doctors who practice abortion are murders. People who defend such practices and who support this philosophy of death are culpable. They are no different than people who aid any other kind of murderer. Until Christians really start to reveal the deep dark secrets of these practices and the real philosophies behind them, we will lose this battle. It isn’t unlike the homosexuality debate. There are multitudes of people who think that the homosexual debate isn’t about sex. They recoil at the accusation that promiscuity among homosexual men is off the charts. These people bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the facts. They don’t look at the data because they don’t care or they don’t really want to know truth. We have to find the courage to stand up for truth and expose the filthiness of sexual perversion and the vileness of murder.

People want morality without absolutes. They want to be able to step in at any given time and make exceptions to the standards. Send Gosnell to prison for killing babies outside the mothers womb, but defend the abortion doctor down the street who kills them only 25% out of the mothers womb. How convenient! We promote homosexuality at every turn, yet contend that sexual promiscuity is repulsive in the next breath. We want to contend that homosexuality is genetic and therefore should be normalized, but adultery somehow is not genetic. Go figure! If homosexuality is genetic, why isn’t pedophilia? Is homosexuality is normal, why do we send pedophiles to prison? They can’t help themselves. We convince ourselves that the man who engages with sex with another man is not a perverted individual but the one who raped our daughter is. We lecture in our universities and make “profound” statements at political town halls about the irrelevance of morals and character in our culture, but when facing the consequences of the deviant behavior that such abstract ideas produce, we do a proverbial about face. We like to have our cake and eat it too.

Ideas have consequences. We have passed the fifty million mark in babies murdered in this country since Roe v. Wade. In an article appearing in The Oklahoma Daily, Sarah Garrett refers to abortion as “reproductive freedom.” She says, “Reproductive freedom should include all factual information and access to resources that allow women and men to plan their families, rather than have the realities of parenthood thrust upon them for lack of education, access to contraception and impartial medical care.” What is “all the factual information” that people who engage in sex need in order to understand the risks of engaging in sex? Sexual behavior, as does any other adult behavior, carries with it certain elements of risk. Every time I get in my car, I run the risk of having someone kills me with their car. It is a risk I accept and am willing to take in order to enjoy the freedom of moving from A to B efficiently. When human beings engage in sex, they understand that a child could result from that behavior. If you are not willing to accept that responsibility and risk, then don’t engage in the behavior.

As I read through this article by Ms. Garrett, I was simply amazed at the incongruence in her argument. On the one hand she argues that “reproductive freedom should include all factual information and access to resources.” Okay, read that last sentence again really slowly before I tell you what she said in her very next paragraph. Are you ready for this? Ms. Garrett then wrote, “Oklahoma’s new Legislature also is continuing efforts to undermine federal security of this right for women by bringing up laws that try to limit access to legal abortion. These limits include the April 2010 law, which requires any woman seeking termination to undergo an unnecessary ultrasound procedure, in hopes that she will change her mind under psychological duress.” Is Ms. Garrett so naïve and biased that she could not see what she was doing here? So access to information and resources only includes information and resources that support the decision to kill the baby. Ms. Garrett argues out of one side of her mouth for information and resources to help parents make informed decisions regarding their reproductive freedom, and out of the other side of her mouth, she seemingly does not want any information included that may really help a parent see they are killing a human life. I wonder how many women would go through with murdering their babies if they had full disclosure of the event via video. If they could see what they are really doing before they do it, would they go through with it? The same is true for the homosexual community. If the world community could see first hand the real behavior that drives the homosexual lifestyle, up close and personal, would they still accept it as freely as they do? The late Jerry Falwell produced just such a video a few years back, and the homosexual community was outraged. All Dr. Falwell did was put the truth on display. Abortionists and homosexuals do not want you to know the real truth about what really goes on behind the scenes. And we allow them to bury it. And as we do, the practices become more and more accepted by a society who is willingly ignorant of the truth. That is, willingly ignorant until an abortion doctor murders babies outside of the mother’s womb.

All of the sudden, the waters get a little murky and what was at one time, conveniently out of sight, is now flashing its bright lights at us and the whistle is blowing. Yep, that is the train of absolute morality bearing down on a society that has dispensed with such morality, is suffering terribly from moral schizophrenia, and is beginning to feel the hangover brought on by too many shots of moral relativism. We have lost our footing because we have exchanged the solid footing of transcendent moral absolutes given to us through divine revelation in nature and in Scripture, and have exchanged it for relativistic, pragmatic morality anchored in the individual person who has become the measure of all things. The problem is that we still can’t decide which person is the right person, nor can we reach a consensus among us regarding a standard or a compelling reason for why we should bother. Well, that is until we are faced with a doctor who is murdering babies outside the mother’s womb and who can’t understand why he is being charged with murder himself. Then we struggle. Or least we struggle until the media stops talking about it and it fades back into the background, out of sight and out of mind once again.

And if you think it is any better in the church, you better put whatever it is your smoking in that pipe down. Now please, when I say church, I am speaking of the visible community of professing Christians. Yes, we sin and we fail, and make tons of mistakes. But the truth is that that is not all we do. We deliberately make conscious decisions to ignore the commands of Christ in those areas where we find those commands to be inconvenient. But we are never at a shortage of words for the injustice we see in the world. We are repulsed by abortion because it is murder. But we have people in the church that can rail against abortion with the best of them, and then turn around and head off to court and get our divorce without any biblical justification whatsoever and convince ourselves that God understands because we are unhappy with our situation. The way we are repulsed by abortion, God is repulsed by divorce. Just because we are not repulsed by an act, that does not mean God is not repulsed by it. Just because we feel a certain way, that does not mean God feels that way nor does it mean that God is less harsh about it for you as he is when someone else is doing it. We work up tears and have this feeling in our heart about God and we think that equals devotion and commitment and desire to please God. We convince ourselves that if we have that emotion going on, that God somehow excuses us or looks at us in some special way. That is Western psychology run wild in our thinking. Scripture nowhere condones this kind of worldly, selfish thinking.

What will it take for us to regain our footing? Simple: it will take God. If we do not recover that transcendent standard that is over us all, that shines to us in creation, conscience, and Christ, we will never regain our footing. God’s ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. We must find a way to collect the courage to say the right thing and do the right thing. The church is powerless to affect influence on society when she herself is engaging in the very things she claims to condemn. If you appeal to a standard outside of yourself to condemn a worldly practice, but at the same time you violate that very same standard with your pattern of living, how is it that you expect anyone to take you seriously? So the Bible condemns homosexuality and abortion. So what! It also condemns divorce! In fact, God never says I hate homosexuality, but He does say he hates divorce. The point is that you cannot appeal to a standard that you yourself are breaking to bring others to conviction because they are breaking the same standard you are. They will laugh at you as they should and you deserve it. We all deserve it when we adopt a pattern of living that deliberately ignores God’s instructions for how we are to live. Abortion and homosexuality are wrong and wicked because God says they are. They reflect behavior that runs contrary to the very nature of His being. People who do these things are condemned because they practice something God condemns. When people divorce against God’s command, they are also doing something God condemns. They are doing it consciously, deliberately, and in premeditated fashion. It is a lifestyle. God condemns it no less than he does abortion and homosexuality. God makes no distinction between them. And nor should we.

The only solution to this problem is for believers in the Christian community to stand up and do the right thing in their lives. Preach the gospel with your life, with your behavior, with what you do. When you sin, repent! When you fail, get back up. We someone needs forgiven, forgive! When they need love and understanding, give them love and empathy. Shine the light with our lives. Then when we speak, our words will mean something. The world does not expect us to be perfect, but it should expect us to have a different standard by which we conduct our lives. Obtaining a divorce and falling into a sin is not quite the same thing. The world knows this and so should we. Falling into a sexual sin and shacking up are not the same. We know this. If we fall, we get back up. That is what Christians do! But we do not shack up and fornicate day in and day out and contend that we are different from the world. Paul tells those who cannot restrain from sex to get married. He does not say they are lost. He says if you cannot refrain from sex, then get a wife or a husband. "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Cor. 7:9) This way, you can have all the sex you want. That is the command. And that is what Christians do. They obey Christ’s word. They do not dismiss it as some outdated, antiquated system of standards from a bunch of Jewish men who were simply a product of their culture, writing from prejudices that should have been abandoned long ago. We suffer from moral schizophrenia when we abandon God’s moral standards. It does not matter which culture you find yourselves in. The irrationality that exists in the moral standards of this world is glaring because the grounding for such morality is not anchored in God’s law. It shifts along with the tastes, preferences, and demands of the culture. But it is the duty and the privilege of the believing community to shine the light of the gospel that will itself provide the necessary foundation upon which every culture can build an existence that is meaningful, where all life is valued, and the love of God is experienced and enjoyed by all.

The Biblical Paradigm for Individual and Corporate Sanctification – Part II

Church Discipline in Context

Matthew 18:1-35

Now that we have dealt with the issues of ignoring and abusing discipline, it is time to discuss the spirit and process of discipline as laid out by our Lord. Most discussions regarding discipline start at Matt.18:15 and end at Matt. 18:18. While that pericope focuses on the actual steps or process of discipline, I believe it leaves out some of the most important elements of the practice. Namely, it does not address the spirit in which we are to exercise discipline nor does it express the manner in which forgiveness is to be extended in cases of the repentant believer. In order to provide a much better context and framework for how discipline should be conducted, and what our attitude should be leading up to, during and after discipline, I believe it is necessary to look at the 18th chapter of Matthew in its entirety.


This is the fourth of five discourses recorded by Matthew. This one focuses on the childlike humility that should define every believer. This section begins with the disciples asking Jesus who will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ answer is sobering. He says that unless we are converted and become like little children, we will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus spends considerable time talking about little children and offenses. Woe to the one who causes any one of these little ones to stumble! Jesus then talks about the desperation of a shepherd who has lost one of this sheep and how that shepherd leaves his other 99 sheep and goes after the one that is lost. It is significant that Jesus opens the parable of the lost sheep with the question, “what do you think?” He closes the discussion around little children with the instructions: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.” This is an ominous warning to each and every one of us. How we treat one another as fellow-believers is high on Christ’s priorities. Whoever causes a person who believes in Christ to stumble, it would be better that a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. This is the value Christ places on his “little ones” who believe in Him.

As He concludes his frank discussion around the treatment of his little ones and the humility that should be present in these little ones, Jesus moves to a parable. So in the context of humility and placing the proper value on one another Christ inserts the parable of the lost sheep. Jesus continues to teach how valuable His little ones are to Him. They are like a defenseless, helpless sheep that wanders away. And when they do, the shepherd values the sheep so much that he leaves the other 99 and goes in pursuit of that one sheep. If the shepherd finds that one lost sheep, his joy is greater over the one lost sheep than over the 99 that did not stray. The shepherd loves and values his sheep. It is in this context of humility that Jesus provides for the steps of church discipline or what I like to call the paradigm for individual and corporate sanctification. It is no accidence that Jesus would emphasize humility and value before He provides the necessary steps for biblical correction. The question you should ask is “why does Jesus spend so much time talking about humility and the value of His little ones before instructing us on the steps of biblical correction?”

As we approach Matthew 18:15-18, we do so understanding two very fundamental truths just gleaned from Jesus’ own teaching. First, we recognize we are all little ones who believe in Christ. As such, we are to demonstrate love toward one another by placing high value on one another. Second, we understand that the shepherd of the sheep places high value on us and that we are to avoid at all cost, engaging in any behavior that would cause one of our fellow believers to stumble in any way. My behavior has to be such that it seeks to help my brother avoid offense. There is a variety of way s that correction may be carried out. But there is only one right way. And it is in the attempt to correct one another that the potential for offense is most likely at its highest. If you will recall some of the abuses around church discipline mentioned earlier, you understand what I am getting at. Some people correct in a way that is judgmental, hypocritical, unloving, hurtful, and without even a hint of desire to actually help someone overcome sin. The sad truth is that there is no humility, no love, and no true value placed on the person needing help. If anything, they are devalued because they are caught up in some fault. And now the temptation of the other believer is to view them as less valuable. The shepherd goes after that lost sheep in a spirit of desperation to find it. That sheep represents someone who has sinned. The parable does not indicate that this lost sheep is any less valuable to the shepherd than any of the other sheep. This kind of thinking reflects sinful arrogance and pride. It places one back in the category at the beginning of this chapter where the disciples were concerned with who would be the greatest in the kingdom. There is no greatest in the kingdom.

Humility and value are the two core principles that must guide the process of biblical correction. These are borne out of a love for God and a love for one another. It is utterly absurd to think that we are better than those whom we correct. To think that we are “different” in some way is probably a worse sin than the one we are correcting in the straying individual. It reflects such a fundamental flaw in a person’s theology that is very disturbing. And if that thinking exists in leadership, we are in deep trouble. I actually heard someone say that their sin is different from someone else’s sin and that they are a sinner but not like this other person. That statement was made by a pastor. I was speechless. It dawned on me at that time this pastor either had some real personal problems with this person or that his theology was in dire need to correction itself. It is because we are all sinners facing a holy God that humility and value must be the guiding principles for biblical correction. If they are not, abuse or abandonment will inevitably result.

After establishing the parameters for the two critical components necessary to carry out biblical correction, Jesus then provides us with very specific steps for executing on the correction of a sinning brother or sister. Now, it should be said at the beginning that this process applies to every single believer. This means the person who simply is in the fellowship of believers, to the Sunday school teacher, to the musician, to the deacon, to the elder, to the sr. pastor. No one has the right to circumvent this process for any reason other than those very few exceptions mentioned later in Scripture. Step one is go and show. This is to be done in private. If privacy were not a big deal, Jesus would not have mentioned it. But Jesus did mention it. Therefore, it behooves us to give privacy its due attention and proper place when carrying out correction. Secondly, in this first step, Jesus said that we are to go and show our brother his sin. It may be necessary to demonstrate from Scripture how our brother has erred. It is suggested that you have your case ready before going to your brother in the first place. You are to be absolutely certain that the person actually did what you think they did. You should be witness to the sin in question. If this is hearsay or an accusation coming from someplace else, that person should be the one coming to this brother, not you. If for some reason you do have to chat with someone regarding some rumor, you do so delicately with the presumption of innocence. If the person denies that allegation, you are obligated to accept their word at face value. Love believes all things. But if you have witnessed your brother sin, you must show him his sin. The Greek word for show is elegcho and it means to bring to light, expose, to examine or scrutinize something carefully. It cannot be overemphasized that any accusation against your brother must be factual. So make sure the behavior is actual behavior, not interpreted behavior. For instance, you may have witnessed someone having lunch with another person even though they are married. Do not jump to the conclusion that this person is engaged in inappropriate behavior simply because you saw them having lunch with someone. Such a conclusion reflects your sinful interpretation of their behavior and not their actual behavior. Do not accuse someone of sin because you think they had an ungodly motive. You cannot prove motive because you cannot see their heart. Judge the behavior itself, not what you think their motive might have been. In judging someone’s motive, you may end up in sin yourself. In fact, such behavior is highly likely to lead to sin. To false accuse someone of sin when they have not sinned is slander and is itself malicious sin on your part. This is why Christ spent a great deal of time on humility and value. He wanted to keep us from hurting others, but he also wanted to keep us from hurting ourselves. Step one then is to go and show the Christian brother or sister their sin. If they listen to you, you have won them. Rejoice like the good shepherd rejoiced! Do not mention this incident to anyone, not even your spouse. No one needs to know about this. We have all kinds of reasons for why we want to tell other people’s sins and failures to others. But none of them are good. Love your brother by keeping it private. Love your Lord by obeying His word in this regard. You are bound by your Lord and Master not to mention this to anyone.

Step two is required when the sinning person refuses to hear you. Jesus said to take one or two witnesses with you. Now there is disagreement over these witnesses. Some contend that they are not actually witnesses to the sin, but simply two other believers who can help you confront the sin of this person. However, Jesus applied Deut. 19:15 to this situation when he said, “so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.” This principle is not insignificant. Deut. 19:15 says, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.” Jay Adams (whom I love and respect immensely) contends that these need not be witnesses to the sin otherwise the issue of privacy is moot. I respectfully disagree. In many, many cases, more than one person knows about the sin. That does not negate the privacy principle at all. One person is still to go to that person in private. And if he refuses to hear, then you can take one or two witnesses with you and confront the sinning person. It would seem to me that Jesus intends these witnesses to be people who are privy to the sin by quoting Deut. 19:15. Otherwise, this quote seems to make little sense. John MacArthur also agrees that these are people who witnessed the transgression. If your brother listens, there is no need to go further. You have won your brother. Again, rejoice and tell it to no one.

Step three is a much more difficult step. You have gone to your brother and he has not listened to you. You have taken one or two witnesses and he has not listened to them either. Now it is time to tell this to the church publicly. This is perhaps the most difficult part of biblical correction. And it is not made easier if you happen to live in a culture that is radically individualistic in its thinking. This individualism seeps into the church and people feel that they have the right to carry on their lives as individuals and that their relationship is between them and God and it is the business of no one else. This is why it is essential to create a culture of correction in your church prior to engaging in this practice. There is no formal ecclesiastical process laid out by Christ. An individual Christian has gone to another in sin. The person has refused to listen. Two or three others have approached the sinning person and still, the person has refused to heed the warnings. These witnesses now have an obligation to stand up in front of the church and disclose this to the church. It would be wise to inform the obstinate person that this is the next step and when that next step will take place. Of course, the leadership should be consulted so that they understand what is taking place and that time can be devoted to this task. In step three the entire church is informed that one of their members is in sin and has refused to repent of their sin. They are then instructed to go to that person and plead with them to repent. It would be wise to document who went to this person and when over the course of the next few weeks so that leadership can observe obedience to Christ’s command and also understand the nature of the sinning person’s contumacy.

Step four is the final step. I call this the stag of lamentation. The sinning person has refused to listen to the individual, the witnesses, and even the entire church to include visits from deacons, elders, and pastors. The church has humbly demonstrated extreme care and value for the sinning person. And yet the individual has remained contumacious in their actions and attitude. They simply won’t repent. In effect, they seem to have gone out from the Christian community, at least metaphorically. The church excommunicates the individual and treats them as a tax collector and a Gentile. In other words, they are to be treated as an unbeliever or object of evangelism. This does not mean that you cut them off and stop loving them. On the contrary, you continue to love them and befriend them and do all you can to bring them to repentance. You simply do not allow them to think that you actually think of them as a believer now. They have to understand that you now view them as someone who has rejected Christ’s word and as a result, they have rejected God. You treat them like you would any other unbeliever that you hope to win to Christ. But make no mistake about it, the entire church must undertake this attitude toward this person. If there are elements in the church where this person may be drawing moral and emotional support that serves to undermine the process and undercut the words of our Lord, this is a serious matter and must be addressed. Such elements must be dealt with seriously. In fact, individuals who refuse to honor the church in this regard are themselves subject to discipline and should be addressed in the same manner as the sinning person. Such behavior would fall into the category of factious behavior. The unity of the church must be persevered above friendships and whatever else might threaten to tear it apart.

Cruel Logic