THEY AREN’T HERETICS BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM - by Jared C. Wilson, and J.D.Hall's Response

Found here. Below this article is a response from a detractor, which we will evaluate.

We need to note that neither author offers a single Scripture or Scripture reference.
----------------

Have you ever seen someone say online or heard someone say in person, “She’s a false teacher,” or “He’s a heretic?”

I’ve seen the claim made on social media about Christian leaders and Bible teachers more times than I can count over the last few years. I’ve always just chalked it up to evangelicalism’s “taking all sorts.” But occasionally, when I see a friend or acquaintance echo an accusation, I lean in. Not long ago, I saw a link to a promised comprehensive catalog offering “definitive” proof of heresies. What I found was a list of various teachings or situations the compiler found problematic: a different view of women’s roles in the church, a different position on how the gifts of the Spirit are manifested today, friendship with—or sharing a platform with—people who teach wacky things. I will admit some of this raises my own eyebrow, and none of it is beyond biblical scrutiny, but in terms of proving a charge of false teaching, I should say I find these catalogs of alleged malfeasance a bit…lacking. And here’s why:

MISIDENTIFYING FALSE TEACHING

First, there is a biblical standard for determining heresy and it doesn’t amount to simply things we find odd or disagreeable. Historically, the Church has produced a number of creeds and confessions to help us with these kinds of rulings. In the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist Faith and Message confirms both the standards for Christian orthodoxy (what doctrinal beliefs make a Southern Baptist a genuine Christian like the rest of the world’s genuine Christians) and the standards for Baptist cooperation (what makes a Southern Baptist a Southern Baptist). The danger, for any evangelical of any denominational or associational stripe, is confusing cooperation with orthodoxy.

So how do we know how to separate the biblical category of false teaching from teaching we just think is “false?” Again, the historic creeds and confessions are helpful here, but so is, guided by the Scriptural priorities on heresy, an application Dr. Al Mohler has called “theological triage.” Basically, this is a way of ordering doctrinal categories to help us know how to relate to others who profess Christianity.

Theological triage divides doctrines into three categories. The first would consist of “First-order” doctrines, things that every genuine Christian ought to affirm to be a Christian. This includes things like the Trinity, the Incarnation, justification by faith, etc.

“Second-order” doctrines would include things that provide boundaries for Christian fellowship—meaning, we would have to agree on these teachings to be able to covenant together in a local church. This would include things like views on baptism, church governance, roles of women in the church, and in some cases perhaps views on the charismatic gifts. Thus, I can’t share church membership with my Presbyterian or Anglican friends, mainly because we differ on who is an appropriate recipient of baptism, but I can still cheerfully affirm their Christianity, just as I hope they can mine.

“Third-order” doctrines would be teachings you and I could disagree on but still be in fellowship in the same church. This may include things like the age of the earth and certain details of soteriology and eschatology. I think it’s one of the strengths of the Baptist Faith and Message, for instance, that while it affirms the Lord is returning bodily and visibly to consummate his kingdom and establish the new heavens and new earth, it says nothing about the timing of a rapture or a particular view of the millennium. Thus, my friend Bob and I can disagree on the timing of the Lord’s return but still enjoy fellowship together in our local church. We agree on first- and second-order doctrines but not all third-order ones.

A COMMON MISCONCEPTION

So let’s take one example used to demonstrate “proof” of heresy, for instance—a different view of the spiritual gifts. You may disagree with the beliefs of others in these matters; you may be a cessationist, for example, when it comes to the miraculous gifts, believing the miraculous gifts have ceased. But continuationism (the belief that miraculous gifts are still operable today) itself isn’t heresy. You may think it wrong or even unwise. But by the biblical standards of false teaching, believing the Holy Spirit still operates in all the New Testament gifts today doesn’t qualify. What has happened is that many Christians who don’t believe the Spirit still speaks in any way today (outside the Scriptures) have elevated that belief to a test of Christian orthodoxy. They’ve made a second- or third-order issue a first-order issue.

I understand why people may have questions about the wisdom of someone’s statements or wonder about the wisdom of sharing a platform with those who are in error. Cooperation at such visible levels can give the impression of an endorsement. You and I may find this exceedingly unwise. We may find it incredibly unhelpful. You and I might never do that ourselves. But can we rightfully deduce from associations, however unwise, an affirmation of heresy?

SOWING UNNECESSARY DIVISION

It all boils down to this: unless and until someone actually teaches something heretical, we shouldn’t call them a heretic. In other words, someone’s not a false teacher just because you disagree with or don’t like what they teach. Someone is a false teacher if they deny a first-order doctrine or promote any teaching that would compromise a first-order doctrine.

Look, the world is in such turmoil right now, barreling full-steam further into the post-Christian era that dawned on the West years ago. The true Church cannot afford to keep turning on each other and condemning each other over second- and third-order doctrines. We may not be able to join the same church. But we should be able to affirm the Christianity of those who share our central convictions. The world will know we are Christians not by our loathing but our love.

*************

Now for the detractor, Mr. J.D. Hall, found here. My comments in bold. 

Note that we do not specifically intend to defend Mr. Wilson or Lifeway, we are examining this author's response.
-----------------

Jared Wilson Complains People Use Term “Heresy” For Heresy-Peddling Website

(Right off the bat we note that the title is dishonest. Mr. Wilson never mentioned or discussed Lifeway. So it is impossible for Mr. Wilson to have complained about this.)

In a case of extreme irony, a Twitter-minister and Social Gospel Coalition author, Jared Wilson, wrote an article complaining about the use of the term “heresy” on a retail website that sells Word-Faith theology, Roman Catholic mysticism, Eastern Orthodoxy books, and the prosperity gospel. (The author continues referencing Lifeway, which will become a near obsession. He is intent on making a guilt-by-association, ironically just discussed by Mr. Wilson above.)

Jared Wilson is a famously wind-blown doctrinal chameleon whose positions on issues are chosen by which side of his wet pinky finger he feels the breeze. He is a slightly younger, less successful version of Ed Stetzer, a blow-hard who once convinced fans he cared about doctrine but who ultimately has demonstrated he is a theological whore working the street corners of Big Evangelicalism. (Now the author moves to personal attacks. Apparently his intent is to implement an a priori disqualification of Mr. Wilson. It's this sort of unseemly, inflammatory verbiage we have labeled "scorched earth discernment." It will get worse later on.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hall seems to be quite comfortable engaging in this kind of rhetoric, even going so far as calling people imbeciles and morons.)

The Gospel Coalition (TGC) contributor, Wilson, (Um, Mr. Wilson. The disrespect is palpable and excalating.)

published an article at the website for Lifeway Christian Resources, one of the world’s most premier retailers of heresy. (The author now moves to disqualify Lifeway, labeling them as heretics. But what heresy is, of course, is the matter under discussion. Yet the author already knows they're heretics, so there is no need for him to discuss the issue, preferring to label and dismiss.

Granting for a moment that Lifeway is heretical in some way, we nevertheless note that this does not make Mr. Wilson a heretic. The author is employing diversionary tactics.) 

By “heresy,” we do not mean “disagreeable things.” (Well then. The author agrees with Mr. Wilson.)

Rather, we mean, “a teaching that is so far off the path of authentic Christianity that to believe it would have eternal consequences.” (Again the author agrees with Mr. Wilson. However, the author will later elevate 2nd or 3rd order doctrines to 1st order so that he can broaden the definition of heresy to his own tastes. He never tells us why this should be.)

Heresies usually are doctrinal errors that are severe and typically are in the realm of soteriology (how one is saved) or ontology (who God is). (So now we have his criteria:

1. Teaching that diverges so much that it affects salvation, and
2. Teaching that is wrong about salvation or who God is.

We would agree entirely. However, the author will abandon these criteria later.)

For example, Lifeway Christian Resources (Lifeway again.)

sells heresy because it promotes books that deny Justification by Faith Alone (by Roman Catholics). It promotes books that deny the doctrine of Propitiation (by the Eastern Orthodox). It promotes books that distort the atonement and its purpose (the Prosperity Gospel). It promotes books that teach that men are little gods (Word-Faith theology). And so on… (All of this may be true, but it isn't relevant.)

However, Wilson wrote for the heresy-peddling retail site (The author relentlessly continues to employ guilt-by-association.)

an article, They Aren’t Heretics Because You Disagree With Them. In the article, Wilson defends egalitarians who believe that women should preach and charismatics who believe that they are receiving direct, divine revelation from God. (We have just completed reading Mr. Wilson's article above. The reader may wish to jump back up and review it, for Mr. Wilson does not defend these things. Here is what he said:

...a list of various teachings or situations the compiler found problematic: a different view of women’s roles in the church, a different position on how the gifts of the Spirit are manifested today...

This would include things like views on baptism, church governance, roles of women in the church, and in some cases perhaps views on the charismatic gifts.

So the author just told us that Mr. Wilson ...defends egalitarians who believe that women should preach and charismatics... It is a lie, as we can see by these quotes. In fact, the word "egalitarian" is not found anywhere in his article, nor is there anything about women preaching. "Divine revelation" is not mentioned either. 

Mr. Wilson did not do what the author claims.)

We should find it ironic that Wilson (Mr. Wilson.)

writes about what heresy is and is not without an understanding of the topic. (Will the author demonstrate that Mr. Wilson doesn't understand what heresy is? We read Dr. Mohler's definitions, provided by Mr. Wilson, and found them to be thoughtful and cogent.)

Wilson’s (Mr. Wilson's.)

argument is presented first as, “Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make them a heretic.” Obviously, this is true.(The author concedes his entire argument, but this will not stop him.)

In fact, we don’t know anyone who would disagree with that assessment. One Christian may disagree with another Christian about any number of things that aren’t in the realm of heresy. (Again the author concedes.)

Christians may differ on something like worship style, clothing choice, or even how the ordinances are to be observed without any threat of being “heretical.” (That is, 2nd and 3rd order beliefs. The author continues to agree with the "heretic.")

However, Wilson (Mr. Wilson.)

then gave two examples of things that were not heresy, in his opinion. The first was associated with the Social Gospel, (Mr. Wilson does not mention the Social Gospel. At all.)

and the second one was continuationism. (Mr. Hall will not make any case at all that continuationism is heresy.)

Speaking about Beth Moore’s wild-eyed feminism as of late, (Mr. Wilson does not mention Beth Moore. At all.)

Wilson (Mr. Wilson.)

claimed that whether or not women should preach was a harmless secondary matter. (The author supplies us with no reference or link to Mr. Wilson's supposed statement. Given his loose handling of other things, things we can read for ourselves and find the author misrepresenting them, we are rightly dubious of his characterization.)

But when seen in the overall framework of ‘woke’ Christianity, this is actually part of heresy with a name called Rauschenbuschism. (In this link the author tells us he invented the term. So he takes it upon himself to create a new heresy and apply it whenever it suits him. If this strikes you as dishonest, go to the front of the class.)

You might know it as the Social Gospel. (Perhaps the Social Gospel advocates for women preaching, but the Social Gospel is a subset found under Women Preaching. Thus, not all who think women can preach are Social Gospel.) 

It is defined as a heresy here: (That is, he himself defines it as heresy.)

Rauschenbuschism teaches that the Gospel’s primary consequence on Earth is not the forgiveness of sins, but the solution to racism, social or economic inequality, poverty, crime, environmental problems or other social ills. The roots of Rauschenbuschism is post-millennial theologically (although not by necessity), but it has come to widespread acceptance in all eschatological views. Rauschenbuschism came to prominence in the 20th Century by men like Walter Rauschenbusch and Josiah Strong… 

Rauschenbuschism became a highly favored tool of social progressives in the 20th Century, as well as Communists and Marxists propagating their views in the United States, although conservatives also utilized the ideology in prohibition and other social movements.

Modern proponents of Rauschenbuschism include certain segments of Christian Reconstruction, adherents to Black Liberation theology, and Jim Wallis. There is growing concern that Rauschenbuschism is becoming slowly accepted by modern evangelicals like Russell Moore, Thabiti Anyabwile and the organizations, the Gospel Coalition and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Time will tell if Rauschenbuschism truly takes hold in traditionally more conservative evangelicalism. 

(The author quotes himself as if he's quoting a independent, scholarly source.

We would agree that the Social Gospel contains elements of heresy. But again, this appears to be a diversionary tactic. We do not know if Mr. Wilson adheres to the Social Gospel, and it actually doesn't matter. The topic before us is, what constitutes heresy?)

Wilson (Mr. Wilson.)

argues that only the historic councils could define heresy, (Again the author lies to us. What did Mr. Wilson actually write? Again, the historic creeds and confessions are helpful here...
"Helpful" is not "only." This is an egregious misrepresentation, which makes the author a dishonest interlocutor.

Regrettably, we are fast approaching a condition where we can no longer view the author as a reputable teacher of the Bible.)

but neglects to recognize that some heresies evolve and change over time, taking on different names. (Does he? In actual fact, Mr. Wilson spends a fair amount of time addressing contemporary issues. Since he therefore didn't "neglect to recognize," we again deem the author's assertion a lie.)

For example, what Wilson (Mr. Wilson.)

calls “Social Justice” is nothing less than the “Social Gospel,” but simply renamed. (Mr. Wilson, as we have noted, did not discuss or mention the Social Gospel, Neither did he mention Social Justice. This is another prevarication perpetrated by the author.)

If anything is a matter of heresy, it’s a false Gospel.

However, the next example given by Wilson (Mr. Wilson.)

is Continuationism, the belief that God is speaking revelation outside of the Holy Bible. (This is a poor definition of Continuationism, bordering on puerile, or even deceptive. Even Mr. Wilson's cursory definition [the belief that miraculous gifts are still operable today] is better.)

This, according to Stetzer-lite, is basically an issue of inconsequential difference. (The author will attempt to refute this with Appeals to History, not the Bible.)

However, the historic councils did reject Continuationism and explicitly marked it as a heresy in the late Second Century. It was called “The New Prophecy Heresy,” the “Montanist Heresy,” or the “Cataphrygian Heresy.” (Remember when the author mocked Mr. Wilson about his acknowledgment of historic councils? He wrote, Wilson argues that only the historic councils could define heresy... 

But now the author appeals to those very same things to bolster his case!)

Those who believed that new prophecy was being given outside the Bible were excommunicated by the Christian Church in 177 AD, and handed over to Satan as heretics. It was seen as an attack on the Sufficiency of Scripture. Later Reformers, like Martin Luther, did not hesitate to call the “Enthusiasts” who made up fantastical tales about what God supposedly told them as “heretics.” You can find out more about the heresy of Montanism here. (The author continues to make Appeals to History, which has nothing at all to do with the biblical case for or against prophecy.

But since we have indulged the author well beyond the bounds of what is required of us, he shall now indulge us as we make our own Appeal to History:

Justin Martyr (100-165): “For the prophetical gifts remain with us even to the present time. Now it is possible to see among us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God.”

Irenaeus (125-200): “In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts and through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages. ... Yes, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years.”

Tertullian (150-240): “For seeing that we too acknowledge the spiritual charismata, or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift ... and heaven knows how many distinguished men, to say nothing of the common people, have been cured either of devils or of their sicknesses.”

Novation (210-280): “This is he [the Holy Spirit] who places prophets in the church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works ... and arranges whatever gifts there are of the charismata; and thus making the Lord’s church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed."

Origen (185-284): “Some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvelous power by the cures which they perform, invoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, along with Jesus and a mention of his history.”

Augustine (354-430): In his work The City of God, Augustine tells of healings and miracles that he has observed firsthand and then says, “I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work that I cannot record all the miracles I know.”

The testimony of history is not as unanimous as the author would like to think.

Now comes more accusations about Lifeway, which the author seems obsessed with. We are at loss to explain this...)

Lifeway sells Sarah Young’s Jesus Calling, which claims to be direct revelation from God.

Lifeway sells Jonathan Cahn’s omen interpretation and astrology books, which the Old Testament says should bring the penalty of death. (What's stopping the author from carrying out the biblical mandate? We discuss this here.)

Lifeway sells Prosperity Gospel books that blaspheme and profane the atonement of Christ and its purpose.

Lifeway sells Social Gospel books, that change the meaning of sin, repentance, and redemption.

Lifeway sells books by idolaters, mystics, psychics, and mentalists.

And yet Jared Wilson, whose doctrinal shifts are so sinfully promiscuous that if you could get a venereal disease from swapping theologies he’d have spiritual gonorrhea, wants you to know that we throw around the word “heresy” too often. (Disgraceful. There is no reason at all to engage in such rhetoric.)

There is little doubt that if Jesus brought his horsewhip to bear on the church today, he would start at Lifeway’s headquarters and beat their executives into footstools. (What does this have to do with Mr. Wilson's supposed heresy?)

When Jared Wilson is not conducting a full-time Twitter ministry or defending heresy (Undocumented assertion.)

for a retail outlet that profits from selling heresy, he is an assistant professor for preaching at Spurgeon College of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Spurgeon, who went so far as to call Arminians heretics, would smack Jared Wilson across the mouth for making the heretical bar so low. (The author has never explained to us why Mr. Wilson is heretical. Remember his criteria: Heresies usually are doctrinal errors that are severe and typically are in the realm of soteriology (how one is saved) or ontology (who God is). What thing is contained in Mr. Wilson's article that is heretical regarding these two primary areas, and why? 

The author made two specific allegations: Wilson then gave two examples of things that were not heresy, in his opinion.The first was associated with the Social Gospel, and the second one was continuationism. As we noted, Mr. Wilson does not mention the Social Gospel. So that leaves continuationism. 

But Mr. Hall author never discusses continuationism or tells us why it is heretical. He says that this is making the heretical bar so low, but we don't know why. He never explains.)
------------

Having waded through the sewer that comprises the author's screed, we are left feeling defiled somehow.