Calling Names of False Teachers

by Andy Sochor

At the beginning of his short epistle, Jude said Christians are to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). This includes “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (II Corinthians 10:5). Therefore, of necessity, we must oppose false doctrine and those who teach error.

However, when it comes to identifying false teachers by name, there is disagreement among brethren about whether this is appropriate. Many believe we cannot label someone as a false teacher unless we go to that person first. Is that something we should be required to do?

Before answering that question, notice a few examples in the New Testament in which false teachers were identified by name so that brethren would be warned about the danger they posed:

“Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme” (I Timothy 1:19-20).

“But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some” (II Timothy 2:16-18).

“I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church” (III John 9-10).

None of these examples suggest that the false teacher was approached privately before being identified publicly. Besides these, there is the instruction given to the Romans to “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17, KJV). The only way to “mark” and “avoid” such men is to identify them by name. There may be times when it could be wise to approach them privately first (we will notice when this might be later), but this is never presented as a prerequisite to warning others about them.

Where do brethren get the idea that we first need to approach a false teacher privately before identifying him publicly? It is based on a misapplication of Matthew 18:15-17. Notice what Jesus said in that passage:

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-17).

In those verses, Jesus described a process in which we approach someone privately first, then take one or two others with us, and finally address the matter publicly. However, notice that Jesus was not talking about one who taught error publicly. Instead, He was addressing a situation in which a brother sins against us personally. (Some translations, such as the New King James Version, have the phrase, “sins against you,” or something similar. However, even if that is not included in a particular English translation, we know it is implied because others have to be told about the sin being addressed; it is not publicly known.) Publicly teaching error is not equivalent to this. It is not a private matter for us to deal with privately at first. Jesus’ instructions in this passage cannot apply to one who publicly teaches error; otherwise, the false teacher could refuse to meet with anyone who wanted to address his teaching and feel free to continue spreading his error without public opposition. That idea is absurd.

If someone publicly teaches false doctrine, it is not necessary to go to him first before refuting the error and identifying him. However, there is something else we need to do first – make sure we can accurately identify him as a false teacher.

Paul dealt with those who misrepresented his teaching. He told the saints in Rome, “We are slanderously reported and…some claim that we say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’” (Romans 3:8). He was describing certain individuals who attributed a position to him that he did not hold. Paul said this was a slanderous report. He used that same Greek word in his letter to Titus when he gave the instruction to “malign no one” (Titus 3:2). Yet too often, brethren, in their zeal to identify a “false teacher,” sin by slandering a brother in Christ because they are not accurately identifying his teaching.

So, while we do not necessarily need to go to a false teacher before exposing him, we absolutely need to be sure we have our facts straight, lest we be guilty of making a false charge. Sadly, this happens far too often.

However, there may be times when we would want to go to someone before identifying him as a false teacher.

• If “brother so-and-so” told us someone is a false teacher, but we have no other proof, we would need to find out what he actually teaches rather than blindly trusting someone who may be sowing discord within the body of Christ.
• If we may have misunderstood what someone taught, we need to get clarification.
• If the teaching was done years ago and he may have changed his position, we would not want to label him as a false teacher for something he no longer believes or teaches.

Even in those cases, going to him is not a matter of courtesy but accuracy. False teachers need to be identified, exposed, and refuted. However, we need to make sure we are not making a false accusation. The Law of Moses stated, “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). Of course, we are not under the old law today. Yet this shows us just how serious it is to make false accusations against our brethren. It is “evil” that we should “purge…from among [us],” which would include marking and avoiding those who continue to cause division by repeating their slanderous false accusations (cf. Romans 16:17).

We need to be willing to defend the truth and refute error. But that does not allow us to stoop to dishonest, divisive, and lazy tactics. If “brother so-and-so” tells you that someone is a false teacher, make sure that is the case before repeating the charge yourself.