As a male, I must lift the toilet seat. Not just the cover, but the seat that has the hole in the center. Since I was a little child, I'd always wondered why this seat has to be lifted in addition to the cover because I hadn't given it much thought. But, raising this seat significantly increases accuracy due to the widened diameter of the bowl as opposed to the restrictions of just trying to shoot through the seat. Sure, at this age I may be able to shoot through the hole with great aim and reach my target destination with good results, but upon closer examination and inspection of the seat one notices the residual residues on the edges of the seat that reveal the flaws of even flawless accuracy and precision -- the toilet was engineered for males to lift the seat and use the widened bowl. The added circumference is necessary.

All of these things should be intuitive to a male of my stature -- 23 years, 5 months old. But, what if I didn't know any of these things? Would it be ludicrously laughable for a college-educated 23 year old male in a 21-century day and age to not know how to use the toilet or its many facets? What if I had lousy aim? What if I didn't know the seat cover from the seat? Shoot -- what if I didn't didn't know the toilet from the trash can sitting next to it and considered them equal? I think that this is the concept the writer of Hebrews had in mind when they penned by the Holy Spirit's authorship Hebrews 5 and 6:

⁹ And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, ¹⁰ called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” ¹¹ of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

Spiritual Immaturity

   
¹² For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. ¹³ For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. ¹⁴ But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. ¹ Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, ² of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. ³ And this we will^[a] do if God permits.
⁴ For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, ⁵ and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶ if they fall away,^[b] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
⁷ For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; ⁸ but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

Just as I should be well toilet-trained after 23 years of aiming and shooting through the hole, we Believers should be well-trained at a daily walk with Christ. It should be something so simple and so fine-tuned after so many days of practice that it is laughable and embarrassing if we don't know what we're doing or if we find someone who's fallen into carnality. Only babes are excepted. For anyone else in the body, why they should be a 'whiz' at walking with God (pun intended).

Quote from Charles H. Spurgeon (June 19, 1834 – January 31, 1892)

"Away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men, it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess.

"Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles, and shape and mould our belief according to the ever-shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so-called, through the world, may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers, once adored, are now ridiculed; the continual exposure of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles. As the quacks, who ruled the world of medicine in one age, are the scorn of the next, so has it been, and so will it be, with your atheistical savants and pretenders to science . . .

"So the bubbles go on bursting, and meanwhile more are being blown, and we are expected to believe in whatever comes, and wait with open mouth to see what comes next. But we shall not just yet fall down and worship the image of human wisdom, notwithstanding all the flutes, harps, sackbuts, psalteries, dulcimers, weekly papers, quarterly reviews, and boastful professors. Show us a man of science worthy of the name, and then we will not follow him if he dares to oppose revealed truth; but show us one in whom the next generation will believe; at present, there is not one alive worthy to be compared with Newton and other master-minds reverent to the Scriptures, compared with whom these men are mere pretenders."

Naming Names.

There are some that get offended by the fact that certain preachers preach against other people from the pulpit. On several occasions you can hear John MacArthur preach against certain false teachers by name, mentioning their errors concerning the faith and refuting them. People get angry and consider it making judgements about others.

Well, it is a judgement on others. However, it's a legal judgement when it's concerning their doctrine (or teaching) and their representation of the faith. Here is the first biblical reason why we are allowed to name names concerning false teachers. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul explains how the church of Corinth is not to keep company with people that are sexually immoral. These apply to people that are cohabitating with girlfriends, committing fornication, the married that are sleeping with someone other than their spouse, etcetera. But, in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 he offers a clarification - not people that don't profess Christianity. No, not the lost, but the saved! It's to be expected from the lost -- they don't know Christ, and we're attempting to witness the Gospel to them, and to live as shining examples of God's work of regeneration on the human heart to compliment our preaching. However, if someone is a professing believer and yet lives as though they were lost, Paul mentions in verse 12 that we certainly have the right to judge them. And we can apply this principle to anyone that professes to be a teacher of the faith. We can expect them to properly quote scripture, to give us the clear meaning of the text and not cut-and-paste different verses from certain places to force the Bible to say what it doesn't to vocalize their own message over the scriptures, using them as a means to their own agenda. We can expect them to not twist the scriptures. And that's why we can know the true from the false -- by the their fruit -- their actions and words (and this includes their teachings). We can name names and identify both false teacher and false teaching because we can expect true teaching or true, biblical doctrine from those who profess to be Christian teachers. We certainly have the right to judge the teaching of those who are preaching from the same Bible that declares the Gospel that saves us. They have to get it right. We certainly can judge those who are within the faith. Based on the principles behind 1 Corinthians 5, this is a right judgment. Paul says, Verse 12, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" Verse 13, "But those who are outside God judges. [Quoting Deuteronomy] Therefore, 'put away from yourselves the evil person.'"

Anyone who teaches the Bible should be aware of this passage in James 3:1, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." (And that's the NIV.) Anyone that picks up the Bible and begins to teach anything is expected to be fully aware of this passage and why it's there. They are fully aware of the implications. Bible teachers know that they face a stricter judgment -- they know not to preach anything false. So, when they err and put words in the mouth of Paul or any of the other New Testament writers or twist verses to say what the context of the entirety of those verses don't permit them to say -- we certainly have the right to point them AND their false teaching out. We certainly have the right to preach against their false teaching and to mention them by name. Because they should know better. We expect Bible teachers to know better -- how is it "[possible] for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age" to lead a life that sent Jesus to the cross in full rebellion against God? In the same way, how is it possible for those who say that they're a New Testament bible teacher to teach the body of Christ things that are false?

Jesus said there would be false teachers among us. (Matthew 7:15-20), "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits."

"Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."

You can identify the false teacher by the false teaching. Someone's words are as much their fruit as their actions are their fruit. And if they're speaking falsely, we can identify them as either (1) a false teacher teaching false things to people, (2) as someone who's receiving teaching from someone teaching false things and doesn't know better, or (3) someone who is confused about the meanings of certain scriptures or is a new believer and just hasn't studied the passage carefully enough. The latter two: the uninformed or confused, can be excused, and simply needs some bible-based admonition and to be given some scriptural clarity on the matter. They can be pointed in the right direction. However, the false teacher isn't confused at all. They're deliberately deluding the people and preaching damnable heresies for ungodly reasons.

Here's another biblical reason why we can name names. The apostles named names.

These men didn't take false teachers lightly at ALL. They KNEW how destructive false teachers were.

Peter said in 2 Peter 2:1-3, "1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. "

'False words' rendered here by the NIV, or 'feigne d words' in some other translations, is plastos logos in Greek, plastos being the Greek word by which we get our word 'plastic.' It also means "moulded, formed, as from clay, wax, or stone." So it's like waxed fruit as compared to real fruit. So, a false teacher comes in sheep's clothing, using a sound bible teacher's vocabulary and choice of words, maybe even quoting a scripture hear and there. But, the heart of what they're saying doesn't agree with Jesus or His apostle's teaching or contradicts some aspect. Or, they'll only say positive-sounding things and leave out any sound teaching from their sermons. Or, they'll only mention something in passing without ever explaining it. There's no greater lie than a half-truth and by only telling us part of what God wants us to know their mouths are filled with lies and they fulfill these warnings of the apostles. They mention some aspect of the Gospel such as the death or resurrection of Jesus, but never exposit it and explain its meaning. They'll talk about Romans 3:23, but they'll never mention. Some avoid words like 'sin' and 'repentance' altogether. Some barely even quote the scriptures. With others, even when they quote scripture, it's out of place and they use the words of the text to agree with their message rather than preaching the scripture's meaning. This is called Eisegesis. They assign a meaning to a verse or choose scriptures that agree with what they want to say. Rather than exegesis (e-x-e-g-e-s-i-s), which is deriving the meaning from scripture rather than assigning a meaning to the scriptures, and preaching what God wants to say to the people. This is important because the major role of any pastor, teacher, evangelist, preacher, or proclaimer of the Gospel is to declare what scripture has to say to the 21st century listener. They are to properly interpret and explain scripture, not use it as a way to deliver a self-help message to soothe the itching ears of the congregation. To tell them what God has to say, not what the people want to hear. And certainly not to turn the Word of God into a cash-machine and only preach the parts that allow them to manipulate an audience of people into sending their ministry money, or as a means to gain as Peter mentions in 2 Peter 2. (Read 2 Peter 2:12-22.)

Paul named names. Here are some of the things Paul says about false teachers.
1 Timothy 6:3-5,
^"3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, ⁴ he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, ⁵ useless wranglings^[a] of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself."

2 Timothy 2:16-18, "But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some." Paul here mentions very clearly 2 false teachers AND their false teaching. The teaching was false because of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul hung everything of the faith on the one solitary peg of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 that "¹³If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ¹⁵More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. ¹⁶For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ¹⁷And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. " So, their false teaching was pretty serious. Paul named them by name and marked them and their heresy out in his epistle. Bible teachers teach the Bible. Gospel teaches teach the Gospel. If anyone who teaches the Gospel, they'll examine 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul explains his Gospel. Paul identified the resurrection as Gospel teaching, a principle teaching someone would believe if they professed to be saved in Romans 10:9. How can anyone deny it? Therefore, we can say with Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:12, "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Therefore, if we hear of anyone altering an essential teaching of the faith, be sure we can name them like Paul. Do it with boldness and authority!

In 1 John, Chapter 2 mentions specific teachings. John mentions in verse 22 of some denying the Son or denying the Father, specific false teachings. He says that they are antichrist and talks about the implications of denying the Son. And after that in Verse 26 says, "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you." Why? Because if the people believed these false teachings, they wouldn't be saved. They'd worship an idol, a false Christ that had no power to save them from their sins, described from false teaching, because they willingly received from false teachers rather than believed the Gospel the apostles preached. John closes the epistle in Chapter 5, Verse 21, asking them to keep from idols. John himself names names. He mentions troublesome leaders in 3 John 1:9-10, "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church." Yet, in his rebuttal to this he corrects the false behavior of Diotrephes in verse 11, "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." People also have problems with quote enquote "comparing teachers" and saying which ones are good to listen to and which ones are bad (maybe because of a misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians Chapter 1). But, John does this and mentions a positive example of exempliary Christian behavior for them to follow (Demetrius) in verse 12, "Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone--and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true." It's not wrong at all -- true teaching is always to be distinguished from false teaching. If anyone of the open theistic, emergent church movement, oneness, or word-of-faith teachers suddenly publically repented from their respective heresies and began preaching solid biblical truth we would certainly have a biblical grounds to receive them and recommend them as bible teachers. We identify the teacher by the teaching, and not the reverse which would be the bias. If they're teaching truth we recommend them. If falsehood, we discourage others from running to them. This is exactly what Paul, Peter, and John did in their epistles when they mentioned names. We're not [intentionally] making fun of anyone's hairstyles, creepy smiles, face-lifts, or fashion sense, we're marking them out because they identify themselves by their false teachings or associate with those who are false teachers.

By naming names we seek to warn you of destructive heresies and false teachings. But, we hope that we can, like the Apostles, accompany our naming of names with the correction of their false teachers. We hope to teach the teachings of our Lord Jesus and the apostles with depth and clarity so you would know true teaching well and easily identify false teaching when you hear it, even without having heard of the false teacher. We ask as Peter asks in 2 Peter 3:1-2, paraphrasing, " Dear friends... I have written [my letters] as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. ²I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles."

(1) Scripture calls me to defend the faith. The scriptures say, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;" (1 Peter 3:15). We're commanded to defend our faith. Not in the world's means and methods of defense, such as with arguments and heavy, angry debates. But, with the ability which God supplies: with meekness and fear. The verse says to give a defense. This defense is to be given in response to someone asking the reason why we are waiting on the Lord Jesus. Why we consider ourselves saved by grace through faith not by works.

(2) So many believers today that do evangelism and witness of their faith avoid apologetics because they fear it will needlessly complicate the message they want to convey to their hearers. They avoid it because they think that with apologetics they would be "arguing someone into the kingdom" or that by using an apologetical reply they are making a conscious effort to "save" someone by their own means or power. And, I would agree with them, partly. The message shouldn't be complicated by needless intellectual arguments, absolutely. We want to retain the simplicity of the Gospel and agree with 1 Corinthians 2 that it isn't by human wisdom that someone is saved, but by the power of God. And yes, salvation is of the Lord and no man can posit by human effort what divine effort was exerted on the cross to save a human soul (Eph 2:8-9), absolutely. But, using apologetics isn't complicating the Gospel at all, it is defending it; and we by no means are attempting to save someone by apologetics anymore than we are trying to save someone by praying for the salvation of their soul or representing the Gospel with accompanying Christian behavior - or any other facet of evangelism that would go along with the Lord using us to accomplishing His salvific end for a human soul.

(a) In 1 Peter 3:15, the apostle Peter necessitates us to want to show our hearers that we have a reasonable faith. Why is this important? Because truth is always true! For example -- Darwinian organic biological evolution is wrong. If it is wrong, and what the Bible says is true, the arguments that the Bible presents, that all of organic life and biology is a product of a work of God as stated by the first book of the law of Moses, Genesis, are going to fit the available evidences and observable aspects of biology and organic life even better than the reasonings of a fallible human argument that anyone with the faulty assumptions of Darwinian evolution could ever impose upon them. We need not worry at all about studying those things because no matter what is studied, the creationist view always fits the given data better and will always prove the Bible to be accurate and correct in all the areas it describes.

(b) No amount of human effort could save us -- Ephesians 2:8-9 declares this very clearly. For it is by grace that we are saved, through faith, and that no of ourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. It's not only not of ourselves, but not of anyone else, either. You can't save anyone you witness to by any form of evangelism. Yes, men can certainly hear the Gospel and be saved -- Romans 1:16 declares that "...it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" it. BUT that is because God has moved to save that person after they'd heard it. Jesus said no one can come to Him except the Father draws them. Many, many have heard the Gospel and have rejected it. In the same respect, men can reject a perfect apologetic of their many questions and life problems and a perfect presentation of the death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4) if God hasn't moved to save that person.

(3) The Gospel is more than worth defending in speech -- it's worth our very lives. One thing about false religion is that it stems out of the violation of the first and second commandments -- men have a distorted view of God because they've received a man-made system of a God not like the holy One who's image is revealed through a right reading of His own words in His own scriptures. Therefore, because they have this false view of God, they worship a false image -- an idol. Buddhism is one peaceful religion. No war ever waged over Buddhism. Could it be that it's because it isn't worth defending? It isn't worth anyone's life or any shedding of blood. And it isn't worth defending intellectually. One reason why you find all of these Christian books that attempt to defend Christianity as a world religion is because it's true. "Christianity" isn't a comparative religion, it's a superlative one -- there isn't one like it among all other things that claim to be the only true religion and it far exceeds anything this world can produce in all areas. We have a reasonable faith that can and should be defended with not only intellectual arguments, but our own lives.