All theological error originates from the evil one. He is more cunningly skillful than we could ever know at leading people astray through academic and highly nuanced theological error. As is true with every other danger that we face, when we come to study theological error we must remember the words of the Apostle Paul: “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

There is a profoundly important section titled, “On the Preaching of the Word,” in The Directory for the Public Worship of God, in which we find a very short and very wise statement about the minister’s responsibility to refute false teaching in the church. What is most captivating about the brief statement found therein is that it instructs concerning, first, the dangers of talking about false teaching, and, second, the necessity of refuting false teaching in the church.
As the Divines unfolded their beliefs about how ministers should approach the aspect of refuting theological error in their preaching, they wrote:
In confutation of false doctrines, he [i.e. the minister] is neither to raise an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily: but, if the people be in danger of an error, he is to confute it soundly, and endeavor to satisfy their judgments and consciences against all objections.
The rationale for this statement is dependent on understanding the nature of false teaching itself. In short, ideas can and often do have massive spiritual consequences. J. Gresham Machen made the important statement about the implications of false teachings and ideologies when he wrote:
False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel…What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate.1
Since beliefs inevitably have consequences on our lives and actions, the Divines first warn against our “raising an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily.” They do not say this to be necessarily or fearfully censorious, or to bury their heads in the sand rather than deal with difficult theological matters. Rather, they raise this warning because of the nature of false teaching.
When I was a young Christian, a friend taught me that “whenever false teaching is taught in a nuanced fashion there is always the danger that some who hear it will be drawn into it.” He went on to explain that this is true within the realm of relationships, as well. Whenever we start to enter into debate with those with whom we disagree we are in danger of becoming more like them–as well as becoming more susceptible to being influenced by their beliefs. It is not guaranteed that this will happen, but it is certainly a very real and ever present danger. Tragically, years after sharing this thought with me, my friend went on to embrace a sinful lifestyle due in part to the public discussions about, and approval of, that particular sin. Additionally, I have watched–with great heaviness of heart–as a minister of the Gospel walked away from Protestantism in the midst of engaging, on church court levels, with men who were being tried for holding to aberrant theological views on the sacraments and soteriology. Whether engagement with sacramentalist views were the cause of his departing from the truth or not, I cannot help but wonder what impact interacting with aberrant teaching had on this particular individual.
This danger must be highlighted within the realm of pastoral ministry in the church. There are some who thrive on debating theological issues. This can be harmful to the members of a church because some members already have misguided beliefs, and some have a very small knowledge of doctrine. In the case of the first group, introducing old heresies can encourage more confusion. I have, time and again, seen individuals start to dabble with heresy because they already had misguided beliefs based on their erroneous knowledge of Scripture. In the case of the latter group, introducing theological error–even in the name of “discernment”–can end in filling the minds of God’s people with falsehood when they ought to be filling their minds with the truth. Far better to teach them the nuances of the truth of Scripture so that they will be able to discern falsehood when confronted with it. You don’t study a counterfeit dollar bill to spot a counterfeit; you study the real dollar currency so that you will be better suited to spot the counterfeit.
Read More

When I was first saved, I loved talking to God and seeing Him work. I still do. Yet, I now see that there is a lot to be gained from a little structure, like actually having a regular quiet time where I pray the Bible. 

I was almost 30 and had been in the Marine Corps for about a decade when God abruptly entered my life in a Damascus Road type of experience. The spiritual change was immediate, but my ignorance of spiritual things was entrenched. I knew nothing about God except that He was real, He was personal, and that I was His. These basic realizations made prayer the most natural thing in the world for me.
From the point of my conversion forward, I wanted to do everything in my life by reference to God, and so I needed to be constantly talking to Him. I was naïve and overwhelmed, but I had not yet thought that I could pray wrongly. It was clear to me that God was God and I was not; therefore, I had no problem with deferring to Him, no real desire to get my own way, and no inclination to ask merely for the benefits package. However, as I learned more and became increasingly exposed to private and public prayer, I realized that my way of doing it had some deficiencies.
How did this realization hit? First, I read about true prayer in the Bible. Second, I observed or experienced some issues with prayer, particularly with Session and in corporate prayer gatherings. Third, I recognized that the biblical condemnations of praying wrongly might apply in different ways to committed Christians.
Below are some of the errors in prayer that I have witnessed or fallen into over the course of Christian life. My hope is that this brief list highlights some things all of us – and especially us ruling elders – need to be careful about while trying to serve the church.
Hypocrisy
The first of these “prerrors” (if I can coin the term) is hypocrisy. In Matthew 6:5, Christ warns us not to pray like the hypocrites, who are people who like to be seen publicly as holy and righteous. Because they are looking for public approval, they do not gain God’s approval. I do not think I have seen an awful lot of hypocritical grand-standing in PCA churches, but I have experienced a different problem with hypocrisy as an elder. The problem on my mind is that the awareness of my own tendency toward hypocrisy can paralyze me.
My sin makes me want not to pray, especially publicly, because I am aware of the all-too-present danger of hypocrisy. I know intellectually that this paralysis can only happen if I am listening to the enemy and not to God, so I have found a couple of practices that help with addressing this. I have to first constantly remind myself that when the paralysis strikes, it is because I am adopting a works-oriented view of myself. Of course I am not good enough on my own to earn God’s approval. Christ alone is perfectly righteous, but I enjoy that perfect righteousness of Christ as my own through faith in Him. To allow remaining sin to cripple me in my walk and duties is concomitant to denying that my name is written on His hand. Then I think about 1 John 1:9, which says that “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Reminding myself that I am judged by Jesus’ performance and not my own, and confessing my sins without reservation, have helped me deal with my feeling of hypocrisy and to pray publicly without this paralyzing self-focus.
Vanity
The second prerror is vain repetition. God denounces this in Matthew 6:7, where Christ cautions His disciples against imitating the babbling of Gentiles and pagans, who say meaningless words and have meaningless practices. By contrast, the Christian is here called to pray with faith and trust, enjoying a freedom of expression like that which exists between a child and a loving father who already knows that child’s needs.
Read More
Related Posts:

Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs provide us a repertoire of biblical theology.  They enrich our worship of God and assist us with words we couldn’t otherwise bring to express our love and adoration to God.  They express our corporate and personal beliefs, convictions, and faith.  They allow us to actually say the name of Jesus in music.

On a recent Sunday, my Presbyterian Church sang the hymn, There Is a Fountain, during and following the Lord’s Supper. Of course, the focus of the hymn is on the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.  However, we began our worship with O Worship the King—another focus on Jesus Christ and a bit later, Hallelujah! What a Savior—again, a focus on Jesus Christ.  We ended our worship with singing the Doxology—praising “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”—our triune God.  Our worship was rich, Christ-centered, and triune God-centered.
As I was driving home, I thought of what we would miss if we never sang a hymn specifically addressing the Trinity, praising the Father and Creator, praising the Son and Redeemer, and praising the Holy Spirit, our Helper and Sustainer. When the New Covenant was introduced, it appears that God ordained the hymns to reflect the revelation of this Covenant just as there were participants brought into that New Covenant.  Did the Holy Spirit cease to inspire new songs that clearly expressed the New Covenant, as had the Psalms in the Old Covenant?
“. . . speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” Ephesians 5: 19 (NASB)
I realize Ephesians 5: 19, despite clearly expressing speaking to one another in hymns and spiritual songs as well as Psalms, is not interpreted the same within Reformed denominations.  Some consider all three words referring only to the Psalms.  In addition, they consider the Psalms as alone being inspired by the Holy Spirit and appropriate for singing in congregational worship.  However, in the Greek “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are separated by a conjunction—kai, meaning and.  In the original Greek kai and has various meanings including ‘also,’ ‘even.’ ‘so then’ and ‘both.  The clearer understanding in this verse is “and.”
Hermeneutically, and to be consistent with principles of grammar, it appears to me one can most accurately interpret the verse as referring to three different modes of music or hymns.  And there is some historical background supporting the nature of hymns that were known to the Gentile world at that time, which may be why Paul chose a specific word recognized by new Gentile believers. This would relate to the nature of the New Covenant that incorporated Gentiles into God’s Covenant family.
According to Ken Puls of Founders Ministry, “Hymn was a term that would have been especially familiar to the Gentiles. In the Greek and Roman empires leading up to the time of the New Testament, hymns were sung in praise of heroes and gods. People would celebrate the military victories of great generals and exalt the false gods of mythology in hymns. But as the gospel swept across the known world, the church transformed the hymn into a song in praise to the one true God. Its transformation astounded the Romans. In 112 when Pliny, a governor in Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking for advice on how to handle the rising number of Christians in the realm, he commented that the Christians were observed singing “a hymn to Christ as to a god.” In his mind hymns were songs for heroes and champions, not for one shamefully crucified on a cross! When Paul spoke of singing hymns, he wasn’t thinking ‘traditional’ or reminding the church to include or revive some of the old songs from the past. He had something more radical in mind. Paul encouraged the church to claim the music of the culture and sing it to God’s glory. The hymn is the first example in church history of a secular form of music being captured and claimed for the sake of the gospel—its transformation so complete that today a hymn is most commonly recognized as belonging to the church.”
Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs provide us a repertoire of biblical theology.  They enrich our worship of God and assist us with words we couldn’t otherwise bring to express our love and adoration to God.  They express our corporate and personal beliefs, convictions, and faith.  They allow us to actually say the name of Jesus in music, such as “Jesus, O What a Name!” They are so important that many choose certain hymns or spiritual songs they want sung at their funeral.  For me, I have already chosen Holy, Holy, Holy as the first hymn to focus on our triune God, the second to be The Church’s One Foundation to focus on my family in and because of Christ, and ending with the spiritual, He Never Failed Me Yet to focus on God’s faithfulness to a sinner who was definitely saved only by grace.
Lastly, how could Easter be celebrated more worshipfully without Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus?  Let’s thank the Holy Spirit for inspiring the Apostle Paul to give such clear direction as to what we could and should sing!
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts: