In recent years quite a bit of discussion has arisen over under what conditions is a person guilty of being a false teacher. Yet, this really is not a new issue. Back in 1976, Leroy Garret wrote a series entitled "The Word Abused" in the Restoration Review. In that series he argued that the term "false teacher" can only be applied to an ungodly, immoral and unscrupulous man who teaches error and can never be applied to someone who teaches error, yet they appear to be sincere. That is, "A false teacher is a liar, and he knows he’s a liar; or he is so corrupt of mind and heart that he no longer distinguishes between right and wrong".

Therefore at that time he argued that one could be mistaken on such things as water baptism for the remission of sins and still not be a false teacher.

During this period Carl Ketcherside argued that "We are all brethren in error; just on different things". Of course, Jesus does not agree with such a statement (Revelation chapters 2-3).

It should be noted that we need to be very careful in applying the term "false teacher". If a brother is in error, he should be taken aside and taught the word of God more accurately (Acts 18:26). Patience and forbearance should be manifested in the effort to recover such a person (Galatians 6:1). Yet, even after saying all this, the question does remain, what if this person refuses to repent? What if they continue to spread error? What is to be done then?

It has been argued that the word "false" when connected with "teacher" (2 Peter 2:1), applies to a person’s motivation more than what they might be teaching. That is, the emphasis in on one being a dishonest teacher and not one who teaches false doctrine.

1. Note in 2 Peter 2:1, the false teacher is noted for bringing in destructive heresies. While false teachers can also be dishonest, note that the first test here is that of doctrine. Some would say that he is a false teacher because he did it secretly. Does this mean that, had the person acted openly, their heresies would have been acceptable?
2. It is noteworthy that Strongs Concordance simply defines a false teacher as a propagator of erroneous Christian doctrine. In addition, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, says concerning the term "false teacher", "probably one who teaches falsehoods" (p. 891).
3. A false witness could be someone who lies intentionally, but a false witness is also someone who gives false testimony (1 Corinthians 15:15). False content of the "witness" cannot be separated from the idea of a false witness, just like, false content of the teaching cannot be separated from the idea of a false teacher.
4. False testimony could be deceitful testimony, but it also describes the content of the testimony (Matthew 26:59-60).
5. A false Christ (Matthew 24:24) could be someone who is deceitful, but would not the term also apply to someone who sincerely proclaimed they were the Christ? That is, false Christ’s made the false claim of being the Christ, whether they sincerely believe the claim or not.
6. A false apostle could be someone who is deceitful, but it would equally apply to those who appeared to sincerely claim they were apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13). Be impressed that Paul notes that "false apostles" looked like "servants of righteousness" (11:15). In addition, the congregation in Ephesus had to test such men, that is, they did not immediately appear to be dishonest (Revelation 2:2).
7. The idea that a false teacher is "one who is so dishonest that everyone can see it" does not harmonize with Jesus’ warning about such men. He said that would be appear as sheep (Matthew 7:15). If false teachers are people who are so corrupted in motive that anyone can spot one, then why are there so many repeated warnings that they will appear as righteous men? And, why are they able to lead so many people astray?

One writer noted: "Remember that Peter warns brethren to be watchful for these ‘false teachers’ who would be ‘among’ them as though they had slipped in unawares and unrecognized. Brethren, could you tell me how one would have all the characteristics described before he could be called a ‘false teacher’ and yet slip in unawares and unrecognized? Would not most brethren notice a fellow who was presumptuous, self-willed, evil speaking, having eyes full of adultery and speaking great swelling words of vanity?" (GOT June 1,2000, p. 7).

8. We also find the term "false brethren" in 2 Corinthians 11:26 and Galatians 2:4. While this term can refer to people who pretend to be Christians, or Christians who are devious, it can also refer to people who were very sincere in wrong convictions. The false brethren in Galatians 2:4 were Judaizing teachers. Yet, these teachers seem very adamant in their convictions (Acts 15:1-4). Note, in dealing with them, Paul did not attack their motives, rather, Paul attacked what they taught (Galatians 1:6-9). The danger with such teachers was not their motivation, rather it was the content of their teaching (Galatians 5:1-5).
9. Paul will encounter brethren who had the wrong motivation, even though they taught the truth and never called them "false teachers" (Philippians 1:15-17). Yet, Paul’s attitude towards those who did not teach the truth was far different (Romans 16:17-18).

We should note that the false teachers were modern counterparts to the false prophets in the Old Testament. Be impressed that a person in the Old Testament was a false prophet for teaching false doctrine (Deut. 13:1ff; 18:20). Nothing is said in Deut. 13 or 18 about the false character or motivation of such a prophet. Rather, false prophets in these two passages were judged on the basis of what they said. The final determination here was "content".

1. First of all, the emphasis that surrounds this chapter is an emphasis upon the truth (1:12-21), (3:1-2; 3-13; 14-18). In the midst of these exhortations we find chapter 2 where Peter warns these Christians against false teachers. Why? Because of the threat to good character? Yes, in a round about way, but more to the point, because such teachers called people away from the message of truth.
2. Again, the reader needs to be impressed that if one is not a false teacher until they have everything in 2 Peter 2, and all these characteristics are public and obvious, then how could such a person fool anyone? How could such a person secretly introduce anything or gain the confidence of anyone?
3. Rather, Peter is emphasizing that such people can be far different from what they appear to be. In addition, I believe it is correct to say that Peter is also noting the end of these false teachers. Paul noted that false teachers do grow worse (2 Timothy 3:13).
4. People must decide whether one is a false teacher with some of these characteristics, or whether all must be present and public. If it is true that false teachers must have the corrupt characteristics noted in 2 Peter 2 before they can be called "false teachers", then would not consistency demand that they have every single one of them before they can be called such? If not, how many of them must they have? One, two, three??
5. Other passages mention false teachers, but nothing is said about character. The test for false teachers in 1 John 4:1-3 is a specific doctrine. The test in 2 John 9-11 is whether not they abide in the teaching of Christ. Nothing here is said about motivation. People have made the mistake of thinking that 2 Peter 2 is the only chapter that deals with false teachers.

The argument is often made that if one is a false teacher for teaching something false, then we are going to end up accusing everyone, seeing that faithful Christians do disagree over some things.

1. Notice the word "destructive" in 2 Peter 2:1. False teaching is something that leads to the destruction of a person’s soul, that is, if they embrace or practice such a teaching, their relationship with God is in jeopardy (2 John 9; Galatians 1:6-9). Christians can and do disagree about various things in the Bible, that do not lead anyone into sin. We might disagree about whether a verse is teaching a particular thought or another thought, yet both thoughts are true and are supported by other verses.
2. Thus, we are not talking about differences of opinion that do not lead anyone into error, but if someone teaches me to remain in a relationship which will cause me to lose my soul, and I accept that teaching and act upon it, I will be just as lost and eternally miserable regardless of the personal motivation of the teacher. Error is still error regardless of the motivation of those spreading it.

One thing that worries me in this whole discussion is the emphasis that people are putting upon someone who is sincere and honest yet who is teaching error. How do we know they are really that sincere or honest? No man can really read the heart of another person (1 Corinthians 2:11). We are often warned about not reading people’s hearts or judging their heart, and yet this is something that is being done.

A better test of honesty is not subjective human opinion, or our feelings for someone, for feelings can be completely wrong (Proverbs 14:12; Proverbs 16:25; 28:26). Jesus did give us a better test, that is, we must examine all teachers by their fruits, which must include the content of what they are teaching (Matthew 7:15-20). In the context of the fruits just mentioned is the specific fruit of following the will of the Father (7:21-23). Thus the final test for any teacher is "Does this man teach the will of the Father?"

Seeing that honest hearts embrace the truth (Luke 8:15), we must conclude that honest hearts also teach the truth and that the final test of true honesty in the sight of God is whether or not a person teaches the truth. Thus, if a person teaches error and continues to do so even after correction, they are at that time less than honest and less than sincere. This is not mean that they are completely dishonest about everything, but it does mean that concerning the error they are teaching they are not being honest in that area of their lives.

Recently, the concept that a person is not a false teacher unless they are morally corrupt has taken another step. Some are now saying that, since such evil characteristics as those listed in 2 Peter 2 are not apparent in teachers of error today, we have no false teachers among us.

The next logical step is that seeing that there are no apparent teachers of error like this in the denominations (does Billy Graham have eyes full of adultery? How about the Pope, the Mormon President, the Jehovah Witnesses, and so on?) Then there are not false teachers in the denominations and we can fellowship them in spite of their errors.

Sadly, while so many people are trying to redefine the term "false teacher", false doctrine continues to be taught and people’s souls are in danger of being lost. Let us always remember that error can be eternally fatal whether the one who teaches the error is consciously deceiving others or is himself deceived.