Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 6
Is it better to let a heretic go on teaching elsewhere than to go beyond Scripture and the historic faith in order to silence him, and why might that idea make serious Christians uncomfortable?
Another way to ask: Is it better to let a false teacher keep teaching somewhere else than to go beyond Scripture to stop him? Why might that feel uncomfortable?

Direct Answer

David Bercot's answer is yes. He sees going beyond Scripture as the far greater danger, and the church can still remove a false teacher from leadership. The transcript does not discuss the discomfort directly, though it does admit there will be heretics who cannot be silenced.

Support from the Message

- He calls it the worst thing you can do to mess with the historic faith in an attempt to silence a heretic. - If Scripture will not silence someone, he says, so be it. You do not start adding to it. - Adding homoousian said in effect that Scripture is inadequate. - The attempt to eliminate heresy led to burning, beheading and prison, and usually it was faithful Christians who suffered. - Athanasius changed the historic faith to out-argue the Arians, and David says he did more damage than Arius.

Discussion Follow-up

Which feels more dangerous to you, a heretic left unsilenced or a church that goes beyond Scripture to stop him? Why?