Week eleven: Titus 3.10-12 THE HERETIC

By Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

The thought of church discipline is lacking in most churches today, but here is a plain statement of its principle. If someone is a heretic, then after two admonitions, he is to be rejected. There is no room for less than this action!

False doctrine is like cancer. No one with an operable cancer would allow it to continue to grow and sap their strength and life, nor should a church tolerate false teaching.

When pastoring in Nebraska, a very dear man began to attend our church. His wife was a radical charismatic. She came to church now and then, but never was very friendly to us. I knew that she would be trouble, just because of the type of person she was. She was causing trouble in her own family spiritually and I was sure that she would cause trouble in the church. I found out one day that she had been to see every woman of the church in the same week, and there was indication that it was to stir trouble. I did not have to deal with her, because the Lord brought her to a service when I was preaching on the Devil's counterfeits and one of those counterfeits was tongues. She left and never returned.

Many churches are troubled by false doctrine. Many churches have split because they have tolerated false doctrine. Many organizations have become liberal due to toleration of false doctrine.

DON'T TOLERATE IT!

It should be noted that the term "subverted" is a perfect tense indicating this is a constant state that will not change. The person is and always will be in error.

Verse 11 has an interesting concept in it. I don't think that I have ever heard this concept verbalized before in any class or book that I have taken or read.

False doctrine is sin. Is the sin from the belief in the false system or doctrine, or is the sin from improper action taken due to belief in a false teaching?

Both could be and are correct. The false teaching is probably not sin if the belief is in innocence or lack of knowledge, however if you know something is false and you hold to it anyway, you are thumbing your nose at God and are living in sin.

False teaching that you teach, even if you are ignorant of its falsehood, can affect and mislead others. This misleading will result in sin, which you are responsible for.

The action based on false doctrine is certainly sin if it violates the Word of God. For a person to know that materialism is wrong, to continue to add unto himself things, is wrong - is sin.

So, false doctrine is sin in three areas for sure.

False doctrine is sin in and of itself if you know that it is false.

False doctrine is sin if you teach others and it leads them into sin.

False doctrine is sin if you act upon it yourself.

False doctrine is also sin if you don't know that it is false. Believing in anything that is counter to God's Word is missing the mark that God has set. It is possible that this type of sin will be cared for by I Jo. 1.9 in that the verse mentions ALL unrighteousness, and many feel this is unknown sin.

Thus there are six areas where false doctrine is sin.

1. If you know it is false.

2. If you don't know it is false.

3. If you act on it knowing it is false.

4. If you act on it not knowing it is false.

5. If you teach it and others act on it.

6. If you allow it to continue in your church.

You might even add sin against the family when you allow false doctrine to continue. The father has the responsibility to his family to see to it that only truth is taught in the home. If he or a family member teaches false doctrine then trouble can occur.

Going back to the Charismatic wife. The husband was a firm believer in truth, but allowed his wife to teach her falsehood to the children, and to cause problems in the family. I do not know the specifics of that family, but I wonder if he had attempted to settle the issue much earlier, if the wife might have submitted to truth.

The term "heretic" is "haireticos" - humm does that mean bald people can't be hair-ethics :-) I'm safe! The term means schismatic, factious, or is used of someone that "takes or chooses a thing" - one that has taken a false teaching as his/her own. Notice I used both pronouns - women can also be heretics and should be treated with equal opportunity when they choose to go into error.

The admonition seems to ask for patience in rejecting the person as there is to be a first and second admonition. I would think this might relate to the confrontation mentioned in Matthew eighteen where you are to confront personally, then with others and if all is futile, then go before the church and have the decision to reject. This is a process that will take a little time, giving the erring one time to reconsider his views and an opportunity to change his mind/course.

Gill suggests, and he may well be correct, that since this is a public problem in the church that rather than the Matthew formula that the admonitions should both be public in nature by the church leaders so that all the church knows what is going on publicly.

This might be the better course though at the very least use the Matthew concept. A church had a problem of division and the leaders tended to the problem privately. There was never a public explanation of the problem, nor the fact that the divisive ones left the fellowship at the leader’s request. Nothing was said, only rumor was allowed to circulate. The problem festered due to this secrecy to a much larger problem. Public admonition would be the best.

"Reject" simply means to refuse or reject something. It means to remove yourself from the false doctrine. It could mean isolation from. In the fifteen hundreds there was a document called "On The Ban: Questions and Answers" by Menno Simons the founder of the Mennonite movement, which among other things spelled out in detail how church members were to refuse to interact with one rejected. It even gave instruction about how the heretic's family was to relate to the wrong doer. It was some serious rules for rejection and removal from the false teacher.

It was somewhat harsh, but if some of its principles had been used through church history many a mess would have been averted. It is all too common for a church to just allow false teaching to continue rather than rocking the boat.

We attended what we thought was a sound church a few years back. The people weren't overly friendly so we kind of found a Sunday school class - we went in and were treated to some very liberal views from the teacher relating to Scripture and its validity. We left class feeling this was a very liberal church. We went ahead and stayed for church to see what the pastor was like.

The message was powerful and fundamental as could be. We left totally confused. The pastor called that afternoon to thank us for visiting. I started with some questions about our confusion. He asked what class we had attended. He said, "Oh yea, that class - they are people that split from another church in our group and they decided to settle with us. They kind of do their own thing in that class. The right class you should attend is ...."

This man had rank liberals in his church, he had one of them teaching in his church and doing nothing about it. What a dangerous situation that could be. Unwitting visitors could easily be sucked into that false doctrine, and what is worse, the interaction with these folks could confuse and lead astray other believers in the church.

"Reject" is used in another way, but the idea is the same - reject. In Luke 14.18 invited guests reject the invitation. "And they all with one [consent] began to make excuse."

In I Tim. 4.7 the word is translated "refuse," "But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness."

The term translated "subverted" has the thought of tearing loose from something, or even turning inside out. Not just a little bend, but a bending that does some real damage.

Recently I saw a Discovery channel show on shipping accidents on the Great Lakes. There was a paddle wheel steamer loaded with people that was caught in a storm, while a sailing ship was having problems of its own and not paying attention to what was going on ahead of them rammed the steamer. The sailing ship thought their vessel could not have hurt such a large steam ship so continued on its way fighting its shifting load and the terrible storm.

Unknown to the sailing ship the steamer sank due to the large hole that was torn in its side.

Great damage can come from seemingly insignificant doctrines. We must be on our guard for those that would tear a hole in our churches.

Let's look at church discipline for a few moments and see what we can learn. This is a section from my systematic theology.

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH Copyright Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D. 1992

I personally have only been in a church involved in church discipline one time and that only recently. Church discipline is a topic that many let slip for many years. It is coming back into the foreground again for which we should be very thankful.

It is the means of keeping the local assembly pure, and it is a needed tool at times.

It is not hard to recall a minister that has fallen from his position due to immorality or theft. It is not hard to remember several members of local congregations that have gone off into open sin.

The hard thing to recall or remember maybe that any of these people were ever disciplined for their activity.

In the past there have been many that have taken church discipline very seriously. We have a series of Questions and Answers from history that were set forth by Menno Simons in 1550 concerning how the disciplined person should be treated. The "ban" in these questions refers to the fact that the sinner is banned from the local congregation. (I have included this complete article by Simons as appendix two.)

I would like to share some of these questions for you. So you can see how seriously some believers in the past were about discipline.

"Should husband and wife shun each other on account of the ban?"

"Should we greet one that is banned, with the common, everyday greeting, or return our respects as his greeting?"

"Are we allowed to show the banned any charity, love, and mercy?"

"Are we allowed to sell to, and buy of, the apostates....?"

"Are we allowed to be seated with an apostate in a ship or wagon, or to eat with him at the table of a tavern?"

We might assume from the questions on the ban that these people were serious about what the word says about church discipline.

I read an article some time ago that mentions a study in the south. The author had done some research on church discipline in a specific area (Mississippi). The church members did not know of any serious church discipline, except for one person that remembered a discipline of a singing star in Hollywood. The point? Church discipline is not a common thing.

Someone has, tongue in cheek suggested, that church discipline today is the pastor and elders keeping quiet about the sin in deacon Jones life so that he won't rock the financial boat.

To say the least, discipline is not a prime topic of activity or discussion these days in the local church, yet the Bible very clearly teaches that open sin should be dealt with by the church body.

DEFINITION

Let us define church discipline as the correction of action, or the removal of the erring believer from the local church body, for the purpose of correction and/or restoration. This is normally undertaken for immorality or deviation from approved doctrine.

At the outset we must realize that discipline is NOT to make the church sinless. It is to maintain a proper testimony before the world. Anyone thinking that discipline can make the church sinless does not understand the teaching of man and his relationship to sin.

Matt 5:23-24 is a text that would indicate we should be right with any brother that has anything against us before we offer to God. This is under the law but in the New Testament context I would assume we could apply this to coming before God with our gifts or offerings. In short if we have anything against a brother, we should settle it before we move into a place where we are approaching the Lord.

This alone would eliminate many of the problems of the church. We need to work on these items as we attempt to build a body for the Lord.

Matt. 18:15-17 is the text which gives us the guidelines for correcting a brother. If you have a problem go to the brother alone and confront him. If this does not work take one or two with you so all can be established in front of witnesses. If this fails then tell it before the church. If this also fails then "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a tax collector".

Some might wonder if this text is appropriate for the church age. The fact that it appears after Matthew 13 where the Jews seem to reject the Messiah, and He begins to teach of things other than the millennial kingdom indicates that it is for this age. Even if you saw it for the kingdom age the principles seem to be good, and I think some of these ideas are born out in the epistles.

Most definitely the most drastic account of church discipline is found in Acts 5. Ananias and Saphira have lied to the church and more specifically to God, and their discipline is very quick and strong. Their lives are taken upon confrontation with their sin. This is a text which relates to the apostolic leadership however the idea that the sin was confronted and cared for immediately should be usable to us today. Note should be made that it was God that took their lives and not the church. The church confronts and in our age takes action of reprimand and/or removal. This is the extent of the church's authority. God may and I personally believe in some cases does, take further action in the lives of unrepentant believers. I believe that John 15:1-14 and I Corinthians 11:30 show that God may remove a sinning believer that is unwilling to turn from their sin from this life.

In Rom. 14:1-15:1 Paul sets down some principles for handling differences of opinion. This chapter shows clearly that differences of opinion are not in view for church discipline. These items are of personal decision and Paul lays down principles to deal with these situations.

The basis for removal of an erring believer from the assembly is based on I Cor. 5:4-11. I would like to consider this for a moment. First of all is this a believer or nonbeliever? It seems to most that this is a believer for we see in verse five that Paul is concerned for his soul. If this was a nonbeliever their soul would be on the way to destruction and there would be no need to turn it

over to Satan.

Some suggest that verse 11 mentions him as being a so-called brother or lost ("...any man that is called a brother...."). However, the context seems to shift in verse nine from the man in sin to another topic.

This man was involved with his father's wife. Paul is quite plain there is a problem and that it should be dealt with. Verse seven uses the terminology that indicates the removal of the person from the church assembly. "Purge out." The term purge would indicate there is to be a cleansing action in the whole process. If you have removed a man that is in open sin, you certainly are cleaning up the church.

In verse five they are to deliver him to the Devil for the destruction of his flesh. The purpose of discipline is seen in seven and eight. Sin is like leaven and you must get it out of the lump before it leavens the whole lump. (Leaven is the same as yeast.) Leaven is usually seen as a type of sin in the Bible.

I have wondered if Paul's choice of words wasn't deliberate. "Puffed up," would picture a lump with leaven throughout - fully raised. His comments then in seven and eight would call on them to clean out that pride - which is sin - they can be a new lump. Indeed verse six indicates this.

It seems somewhat hard to envision a church that is proud of the sin that is within. The idea may be they were proud of how tolerant they were of the sinners. Tolerance is not something that is to be desired in the church, be it tolerance of sin, tolerance of false doctrine, or tolerance of improper activities.

We attended a Sunday school class in the South while on vacation and the teacher was involved in this idea of being pleased about how tolerant the people in her church were of one another. She mentioned they even had fundamentalists and liberals in the church and they all got along fine.

That is not getting along, that is being tolerant of false doctrine in your church assembly!

We need to look briefly at II Cor. 2:6-11 before we move on. Most agree that this is speaking of the man in I Cor. 5 that was to be put out of the church. Paul tells them to commend their love to him and to forgive him and comfort him. Restore your fellowship with him would be the idea of the text.

Another text which relates to the topic is Gal. 6:1,2. If anyone be taken in a fault restore him in meekness. The warning also is given to consider yourself so that you aren't tempted in the same manner.

The question is, "Does this relate to church discipline?" Specifically I would doubt it. It seems more of a generic type sin rather than immorality etc. The principles set forth may well apply however. Restore in meekness - and seeing to it that you don't become tempted. Along with this we must not forget that Christ was very forceful when he ran the money changers out of the temple (John 2:12-17), and most consider him meek.

There seems to be evidence that unruliness or disobedience is also a basis for taking steps of discipline. I Thes 5:14 "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient toward all men." II Thes. 3:6,14,15, mentions that we should withdraw from those that are disorderly and those that walk not after "the tradition which he received of us." Verse 14 tells us to "have no company" with anyone that disobeys the words

of the epistle.

The elders or church leaders are not exempt from the possibility of discipline. I Tim. 5:19,20, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." Trouble with elders should be heard only if two or three witnesses are available. Then confront him before the assembly.

In our "don't scare people" atmosphere today we don't dwell on the aspect of hell because we don't want to scare anyone into heaven. This text tells us that disciplined people will cause fear in the assembly. Fear is not the best motivation to obedience however, the Word states that it is a possible motivation.

Titus 3:10-11 sets a basis for discipline for divisiveness. "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, Knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself." This verse tells us to reject after the second admonition the heretic. The term heretic seems to have the idea of one that is divisive.

Another text which we need to look at is II Jo 7-11. First of all we need to see that verse seven shows these to be lost people! This seems quite clear that we are to have no part with "RELIGIOUS" people that have a wrong view of Christ. This would be in the realm of having them in our homes for hospitality and encouragement. I'm not sure it prohibits having them in to witness to them yet I'm not sure that is a good idea either. You might run into difficulties. We can

certainly witness to them - that is not a thought in the text!

From what we have seen there is plenty of evidence to show that we should and must discipline believers that are in sin. If we do not then we are allowing the leaven that Christ spoke of to contaminate the entire assembly. If we do not discipline, then we invite trouble and strife into our churches.

Discipline is not popular in our churches today. I have talked with pastors that have taken a needed stand and found themselves questioned for their activities.

The next question. What offences do we discipline for? I would submit a list of topics and references for your consideration.

a. Immorality. I Cor. 5

b. Unresolved disputes between brethren. Matt. 18:15-17

c. Elders that sin. I Tim 5:19,20

d. Repeated troublemaking. Titus 3:10

e. Outward sin, such as divorce or immorality.

A related question. Are there others that we should separate from?

a. Those teaching false doctrine. II John 7-11.

b. Professing people involved in fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drinking or cheating. I Cor. 6:11.

We have shown that discipline is Biblical and that it is being ignored in our day. So, why do churches today fail to discipline? May some possibilities be set forth for your consideration and future avoidance?

a. Afraid to rock the boat. Financial problems will come if we make trouble. We might hurt someone's feelings. How would it look to the community?

b. Indifference. We don't care.

c. There is always the usual outcry that "We can't judge." This argument is illogical. God states that we are to discipline. Thus we must assume that discipline is not "judging," or else God is telling us to do something that He has told us not to do. Now, just how logical is that?

All of these allow the leaven to leaven the whole lump.

Now that we see discipline to be correct, we need to consider who it is that should do the disciplining? Yes, the individual should confront, yes there should be witnesses on the second trip. These witnesses should be the elders so they are involved from the beginning. Several references indicate that the elders are the ones to become involved. Acts 20:28 show the elders over the church. I Thess. 5:12 mentions some are over the church for the purpose of admonishment. Heb. 13:7,17 mentions those that rule over the church and that the church is to submit them.

If you have been reading newspapers or listening to the network news over recent years you know that churches have been sued for disciplining a member. There is a lot of worry about lawsuits.

First of all we need to remember that the law of man is not the law of God. God tells us to discipline. If the law of the land punishes us for doing so, then so be it. We must do that which God has said.

The lawsuits that I have heard about seem to have been caused by improper application of the discipline. One lawsuit in particular was brought because the church broadcast the sin of the person far and wide. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that we should take out a personal want ad to advertise a persons' sin. We should be as discrete about discipline as possible without

causing hurt.

We need to consider a few easy steps of prevention that might save your church from a lawsuit.

I might suggest an article from Christianity Today, "Church Discipline Without a Lawsuit" by Carl Laney, Nov. 9, 1984 which deals with this problem. I have adapted some of Mr. Laney's points into the following list for you in case the magazine is not available to you.

1. Get insurance for the problem. Some church insurance companies have it available. We have insurance to avoid lawsuits for accidents etc. so there should be no real moral question in taking this step. Yes, it is sad that our Christian society has degenerated to the place where we have to insure ourselves against such activities, but this is the society that God has asked us to operate in.

2. Don't slander while the discipline is going on nor after. There is no need to cause pain and suffering. Present the facts to the church family, act and keep your mouth shut.

3. Don't spread the information outside the church family. This is a family problem and there is no need to take it outside the family, no matter how badly you want to talk about it.

4. Include in your constitution a clause that allows for church discipline. Have each member sign the constitution as they join the church. This may or may not take care of the possible situations.

5. Possibly a visit to your lawyer in your state would be of good advantage.

Include just what you believe church discipline is, why it is to be used, and the procedure which is to be followed. Indeed if there is no clause in your constitution, put one in and ask all to sign it, be they new members or old.

Dr. Laney suggests the inclusion of a paragraph which forbids the member to sue the church leadership or the church if they bring church discipline action against the member.

I would work into this statement, something that covers you and the church in case they withdraw membership during the procedure. This would give them a moral obligation not to sue. You could also include information on the fact that Scripturally the believer is not to go to law with a brother etc.

5. If someone tells you something in confidence then you are bound to keep that confidence. If there is a real problem it will probably come to the surface in time.

I might take a side track for a moment and state there is a real lack of keeping confidences in the church today. Many of the illustrations I hear come right out of counseling sessions. That is not confidence!

6. In all of the activities attempt not to embarrass those that are involved. This can only hurt and bring about hard feelings. The desired result of discipline is restoration and hard feelings will not aid in this process.

7. During the process be sure to reveal only the information that is necessary for a proper procedure. Disclosing all of the little details is not necessary.

If at all possible, keep all discipline activities within the local assembly. If the person tries to transfer membership to another church, you should be bound to let the new church know they are under discipline. The details may not need to be given unless it affects the new church's decision.

If it is a pastor that is disciplined then there should be contact with the men of his ordination council, so that proper steps can be taken if any are needed.

Now, the following is my OPINION! DOCTRINE OF DERICKSON.

If you have someone come to your church for membership from a church close by, take time to find out why they left the other church. It may save you a multitude of trouble. Usually when people leave it is because of problems. You don't need those problems. If this is the case it would be good to talk to them and ask them to return to their previous church to solve their problem, and then they can be considered for membership.

8. If a lawsuit comes into your future, find a good lawyer so that you know you are doing things correctly and seek an out of court settlement. This will allow you to not go to court with your brother. If this is not possible, then you are bound by the law of the land to answer the charges and you must do the best you can to bring about a peaceful end to the matter.

9. Be very careful to inform the congregation. A church in Oregon discovered a teacher and woman were involved. They were guilty and would not cease their activity. The elders wanted to keep it quiet because both parties were very prominent members. The couple left the church voluntarily, but the elders did not inform the congregation. Rumors began flying and the elders still kept quiet. Before the situation was over others left because they mistakenly thought that the elders had kicked the erring couple out of the church with no reason.

Let's draw some conclusions to our study.

1. Church discipline is not a four-letter word. It is taught in Scripture and we should be practicing it!

2. We need to know our own attitudes. Discipline is to be done in love and concern for the other person. Forgiveness is the required when confession and repentance are forthcoming. (I Cor. 5:2; Gal. 6:1; II Cor. 2:7)

3. There should be a restraining influence from discipline upon the rest of the membership. I Tim. 5:20

4. For the church that is contemplating not bringing discipline I would recommend they read Rev. 2:12-17.

5. I Pet. 1:15 calls us to holiness. II Tim. 3:2 mentions that the elder is to be "above reproach". I Thess. 5:22 calls us to avoid any appearance of evil. Let these be your guide.

In light of such verses, we as local churches must maintain the purist assembly that we can. This comes from personal purity. This comes from prodding our friends to purity. This comes from purging impurity, if need be.

Years ago we attended a church in Denver, CO that had a missions conference. Two missionaries from Africa came to the conference and were talking about how great the church was doing in Africa. It was growing, it was evangelizing, and it was an alive church.

I asked the two missionaries why the church in Africa was such an alive, growing church. The younger missionary quipped out some quick answers that I accepted. (I wasn't convinced that he had answered my question.) The next day the older missionary came to me and said, "Stan, I think I can answer your question from last night with one word. "Purity." He went on to explain that the church was pure on a personal basis and they were pure on an ecclesiastical basis as well.

That was an answer that made much sense.

6. In the end result, I believe our emphasis should be squarely upon the Word of God. If lawsuits come they come. If bankruptcy comes it comes. God's Word must stand and we for it!

Mr. Laney ended his article with I Tim. 3 12, "Indeed, all who desire to live Godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.."

I suspect that the following is the best policy. PROBABLY THE BEST CURE FOR CHURCH DISCIPLINE IS CHURCH DISCIPLIN'. If we teach them right there will be less chance for error.

Some other references which might add to your personal study: Ex. 12:15-19; Ex. 13:7; Lev. 2:11; Deut. 16:4; Matt. 16:6,12; Mk. 8:15; Lu. 12:1; Gal. 5:9; I Cor. 6:11.

Enough of that let us move on in the passage.

12 When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter.

We now shift to some personal matters and plans of the apostle Paul.

Artemas: This man's name means "gift of Artemis." This reference is the only allusion to this man in the Bible.

Tychicus: Tychicus means "fateful."

We know little of these two men, but they must have been quite valuable for Paul to send one of them to Crete, probably to carry on the oversight of the churches of Crete after Titus had gone.

Tychicus is mentioned also in Acts 20.4; Eph. 6.21, 24; Col. 4.7,18; II Tim. 4.12 and here in Titus 3.12.

He is more than an acquaintance it seems from Acts 20.4 "...Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord...." From the Ephesians passage it is learned that he wrote the book to the Ephesians believers for Paul, or at his direction/quotation. Again in Colossians we see the closeness between this man and Paul, "...Tychicus declare unto you, [who is] a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord:"

Like Ephesians, Colossians was penned, at least partially, by Tychicus ( Col.4.18). A very important man to Paul it would seem, yet Paul was willing to give up this man to gain benefit from Titus. You can only imagine how valuable Titus must have been to Paul. It may also be that Paul needed Titus's spiritual gift rather than that of Tychicus for the next portion of his ministry.

Nicopolis: Nicopolis means "city of victory" and there were a number of cities by that name around the travels of Paul. Many of the conquerors would rename a city Nicopolis to commemorate their victory. (Gill suggests that this is the Nicopolis of Thrace but gives no real basis for that statement. Life Application Bible states that it was on the western coast of Greece.)

Now, little can be gained from this verse but note that Paul wants Titus to leave Crete and come to him, thus he EXPECTS Titus to finish his work in a matter of weeks or at most months! Think back through all the things he is to teach the people and wonder at how he could accomplish so much. It must have been done by some serious time spending on the part of the people with Titus to learn all this stuff. More than three hours a week I'd guess!

There is another truth here of interest. Some quote James 4.13 "Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14 Whereas ye know not what [shall be] on the morrow. For what [is] your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." as teaching that we ought not make plans for the future. This passage in Titus counters that thought. The James passage and the Titus passage must be understood within their own contexts as well as the Bible the context in which they reside.

Paul made plans. This is evident elsewhere in the Word, however the Spirit stopped him from accomplishing some of those plans. We should plan the best we can knowing our situation, then allow God to make modifications to our plans as the need fits His Will.

James is simply telling his reader not to make and count on plans, for their life is tenuous. He is not saying make no plans whatsoever.

APPLICATION:

1. Paul determines to winter in a specific place. Does that mean this is a proof text that "Snowbirds" are doing God's will? Snowbirds are those folks that go to the sunny states for the winter then return home for the summer.

No, this has nothing to do with Snowbirds, though it may relate to the thought of hiding out for the winter. There would be a lot of difficulty in traveling during the winter. It is my feeling that the shipping might have been quite hampered by winter storms in that day and area.

It also would give the apostle time to care for his writing and teaching responsibilities.

2. So, just how important are you to your pastor? Are you a valuable servant of God which your pastor can use to assist him in his ministry? What a responsibility the congregation has to minister in the church - to assist in the overall ministry that the church has to its own body and to the lost outside.

What a responsibility, also, for the pastor to assist ALL members of the congregation in finding ways to use their spiritual gift for the edification of the body of Christ. He is not totally responsible to see to it that all have a place to minister, but if someone is not ministering it is his responsibility to encourage that one to find a place to work.

Most churches operate with about fifteen to twenty percent of the body doing all the work while the other percentage sits and lets them. This is not the way that God wants it. He wants all people ministering with the gifts that the Spirit has given.

3. The term "heretic" deserves a little closer look by way of application. Barnes quoting Webster mentions the word "occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The corresponding noun ... occurs in the following places: Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5 Acts 26:5; 28:22, where it is rendered sect; and Acts 24:14 1 Corinthians 11:19; Galatians 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1, where it is rendered heresy, and heresies."

Barnes goes on to say, "The true notion of the word is that of one who is a promoter of a sect or party. The man who makes divisions in a church, instead of aiming to promote unity, is the one who is intended. Such a man may form sects and parties on some points of doctrine on which he differs from others, or on some custom, religious rite, or peculiar practice; he may make some unimportant matter a ground of distinction from his brethren, and may refuse to have fellowship with them, and endeavour to get up a new organization. Such a man, according to the Scripture usage, is a heretic, and not merely one who holds a different doctrine from that which is regarded as orthodoxy."

We often think of the word "sects" as being some large movement such as the Pharisees of the New Testament, but it more probably relates to a small group with in a larger group that holds to different doctrine. Thus a reformed man gathering adherents in an Armenian church could be considered a sect or heretic.

The word relates not only to doctrine or religious belief, but can relate to philosophy. Now, that tends to get a little touchy, in that many groups find themselves differing in philosophy with a Biblical basis. This would make them a sect as well in my thinking.

The sad thing is that many a pastor has caused the older, founding people, of churches to become outcasts in their own churches by installing and forcing contemporary music upon them. The older folks differ and rightly so - the problem is that they become the heretics and are shunned rather than the interloper that subverted the congregation.

The person that forms a sect is actually causing division. Now isn't it the pastor, with his contemporary music, that is splitting churches then the older folks that are forced to leave. I think many pastors owe a grand apology to many congregations for causing division within a body that formerly was quite united.

Pastor, beware what you do in a church. You are there to feed not divide. The same goes to a reformed pastor that takes on a church he knows would reject him if they knew he was reformed. I have been told of a large number of churches that have been taken into reformed groups by unscrupulous pastors that came in unawares on the part of the congregation. Yes, the congregations should have been more careful in their selection, but if the pastors had been ethical and open in the first place none of the problems would have developed.

4. I would suggest you consider this possible application. If you believe, say the Charismatic movement, is divisive and incorrect theologically should you invite one that believes in such things into your church to minister to your people? It seems rather a fundamental violation of the term reject used here yet many pastors do just that.

Many pastors do not even ask of the doctrinal background of missionaries and speakers that they are asking into their pulpits. It is their responsibility to assure the congregation of like minded speakers, not just someone to fill the slot left when the pastor wants to take a break or a vacation.

In my mind this is tantamount to the shepherd inviting a wolf in among his congregation for a shot at feeding himself on one of the sheep.

It is no different when a music group is asked to minister. If the pastor does not know the type of music and the content of the lyrics before the invitation, he is asking for trouble and most likely will soon find it in his church.

Many reject the teaching of separation, but this is what separation is all about. Separating your sheep from the wolves that would come in and make converts to their line of thought.

5. Keathley uses an Old Testament account to show that this admonition is not just a telling of someone that they are doing wrong, it is much more. In I Sam. 2.24ff Eli tells his sons of their error, yet in 3.13ff Eli is rebuked by God for not taking care of his sons’ problem.

What might be included in this admonition?

a. Identification of the problem. Firstly, just what is being taught? Secondly, just what is wrong with what is being taught? Thirdly, what is the remedy for what is being taught?

b. Confrontation of the person accused. Are these things found above, true and accurate? If so then the person should be correctly accused of being divisive and given opportunity to question his accusers so that all are plain and clear about the wrong of the person.

c. Elaboration of the consequences and any further action that is expected of the accused and any action that will be forthcoming from the accusers, such as the second admonition.

d. The second admonition should go along the same lines.

e. Closure of the situation should be next. Either rejection of the false teaching by the accused, or rejection of the heretic from the assembly by the leadership.

It must be clear for all parties lest there be confusion or misunderstanding.

Note however in our society of rationalization, lack of ethics and general moral malaise don't assume the above is a slam dunk. It will be difficult to get the congregation to realize the black and white of the issue that most likely will be viewed as a gray area as most sin and incorrect doctrine appears to so many.

Be clear, concise and courageous and God will bless your effort.

II Thess. 3.14 also relates to this process. This passage probably relates a little closer to the Matthew concept, however to both. "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count [him] not as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother."

Note, the reconciliation aspect of the process. Even in the admonition process the reconciliation is the aim, not the rejection. The rejection comes when the reconciliation attempts have failed. Even after rejection, reconciliation is the goal of the whole process. (See Romans 16.17 also)

6. The idea of the person being "condemned of himself" relates to the fact that he has been confronted twice, and has been rejected. It is his fault that it has gone this far, it is his problem to assure reclamation by the church by repentance, and it is his failure before God. Most people in this situation will rationalize all of the problems away I'm sure, but in reality it is they that condemn themselves.