It was not my intention when I wrote the last blog to wait this many months before writing Part 2.  I was addressing the subject of dealing with false doctrine and how to handle the matter of calling out the names of false teachers.  I mentioned Carlton Pearson by name, calling him an example of a false teacher.  He is one who used to preach truth, but has become a promoter of a doctrine that says that a person is saved, even without specifically receiving Christ as Lord and Savior unless he renounces Christ.  That’s my understanding of his teaching.  He also teaches that a literal burning hell is not in the Bible.  He says that hell is “man’s invention, not God’s intention”.  He actually says “it is a human manufactured religious icon, no less idolatrous than deifying a statue or statute considered sacred or holy”.  So, to believe that there is a place of torment with flames of fire, such as Jesus described in Luke 16:19-31, is to be guilty of idolatry, according to Mr. Pearson.  You can see why I call him by name and label him a false teacher.  He calls himself Bishop Pearson.  Therefore, he is a false bishop.

    While naming him and calling him a false teacher, I refrain from calling most other preachers and teachers as a “false teacher”.  Some teach false doctrine in some areas.  When a well-known pastor preaches a message I would call harsh against those of us who teach that God plans for believers today to receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, I don’t call him a false teacher.  On that doctrine, he is off base and teaching false doctrine, but we must be very cautious about calling everybody who gets off on a doctrine or two as “a false prophet or teacher”.

    I said in the previous blog that it is appropriate to address false doctrines without mentioning specific names of the ones teaching them.  Then, I said “but that presents a problem”.  The problem is that in teaching against a false teaching, it makes people wonder if you are talking about Brother So-In-So.  Sometimes, people assume you are talking about a particular minister when you aren’t.  Then, they decide, if they have confidence in you, that a particular brother is a false teacher because of what you said.  And, it’s all a conclusion based on the assumption that you are referring to Brother So-In-So. 

    But, if we get too liberal in the naming of preachers, it conveys the idea that we are on a crusade to criticize every preacher by name with whom we disagree.  One famous preacher does this.  He has named so many preachers and proceeded to blast them, so to speak, that he seems mean-spirited and vindictive.  It is not my ministry, and I don’t believe it should be anybody’s ministry, to start going down the list of preacher after preacher, marking them as false.  However, there are false teachings that need to be exposed for their error, and occasionally a false preacher that needs to be named for what he is.

    There is a balance in all things, and this is certainly an area that calls for a balanced approach.  I hope these comments have been helpful to you.  Your response and input is invited.

Sometimes, it is important to mark certain people who cause divisions contrary to the gospel.  Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  The Amplified version says to “be on your guard” and “avoid them”.  I believe that it is appropriate on some occasions to specifically name names when a teaching is so blatantly wrong that it is damnable.  That’s why I don’t hesitate to state bluntly that Carlton Pearson is a false teacher that should be avoided.  I believe it is accurate to call him a heretic.

    Other times, I am more hesitant to call names, and other times, we address false teaching while refusing to name names.  Let me explain this as best as I can.  Sometimes, we will mention the name of someone teaching some things that are clearly false, but stop short of calling him a “false teacher”.  That’s a bit paradoxical, though, because an argument could be made that a person who teaches false doctrine is a false teacher.  However, sometimes, a preacher is just off in some areas, and right for the most part.  And, sometimes, he just doesn’t go far enough in his teaching, making it a false teaching that would be okay if he included the whole truth.  An example of this is when Joel Osteen exhorts people to be the best you that you can be, but fails to explain that that must be after repentance.

    Another is Rick Warren.  I don’t consider either Joel Osteen or Rick Warren to be a heretic.  “Heretic” is a strong word used to describe one who has become factious and schismatic, deviating from the truth and repugnant to the established faith.  It’s a word that is sometimes used carelessly and maliciously by preachers who don’t like what someone is teaching.  It’s not uncommon for a minister that hates the teaching of faith, healing, or prosperity to label those who teach those things as heretics.  That is clearly wrong and “over the line” to throw out that label without good reason.

    Jesus warned us strongly against speaking contemptuously and insultingly to a brother.  (See Matthew 5:22)  I could get into more specific details about the areas of “false” teaching that are proclaimed by Joel Osteen and Rick Warren, but that is not the main point of this blog.  My point here is to say that I wouldn’t call them heretics.  Some people would call them heretics.  But, some people would call me a heretic.  We have to be very careful in marking people. 

    With all that in mind, it is definitely not inappropriate to address false doctrines without mentioning specific names of the ones teaching them.  But, that presents a problem I will address in the next blog.