My understanding is that there are different types of error in the New Testament, different types of people being influenced by it, and different responses from the apostles to these groups. For example Peter in Galatians 2 was temporarily inconsistent and not in step with the gospel, and Paul calls him on this. Apollos in Acts 18 had been inaccurate in his public teaching and was instructed by Priscilla & Aquila. Apollos was clearly teachable and accepted correction. But there is no indication that he was denounced by P & A. Peter on the other hand got a public telling off for his inconsistency. So even though Apollos was deficient in knowledge, and Peter inconsistent, both were brought to a positive point of understanding and behaviour in line with the gospel. There is obviously a different approach going on with the case of “another gospel” in Gal. 1.

With regard to your question I take it that Paul introduces the deception of Eve in 2 Cor. 11 and compares it to the deception of the church by the super-apostles in order that the Corinthians would have a clear understanding of what was going on and what was at stake for them. It was not merely that the false teaching was wrong, it was also deceptive and seeking to destroy the marriage relationship of the church to Christ. It was error that threatened to destroy that relationship. The Corinthians needed to know this since his other Jesus they were hearing about was neither true nor benign in his influence. Grasping the relationship of error to the devil I take it is part of a Christian world-view.

And the trouble with heresy hunters (as Steven called them in his above comment) is that they tend to a view where any kind of innovation is seen as a threat because it is quetsionbs the theological and ecclesiastical status quo.

But my real question is: How do we respond to heretical tendencies when we see them, other than saying: “this is the work of the devil” – which may or may not be true but is not particularly helpful in the disussion?

I guess this is slightly off topic but nonetheless is an important question. Perhaps, as with heresy, the mix of the intellectual, moral, and emotional aspects of life and truth are all related here. I once knew of a student who declared himself as atheist after returning from a missions trip to Eastern Europe. It was not that he saw things that that made him question the existence of a good and loving God but because his parents were unbelievers and nothing had changed. He may have been led to expect that they would come to faith. Last Sunday we had a new family with us in church. The husband came in at the end of the service. He is now an atheist, although they were once involved in a Charismatic church nearby. Outwardly he was saying that evolution turned him into an atheist. But I suspect that more was going on than this.

I’m sure it is quite possible for people to believe in God with untested assumptions. And I’m sure that some people can be shaken in their belief by the imposition of unacceptable criteria for believing by skeptics (i.e. enlightenment rationalism). In other words the bar is set too high for belief by unbelieving criteria that are unprovable assumptions.

And I should add we haven’t got to the heart of unbelief until we probe aspects of human nature, desire, and motivation beyond the intellectual.

martin – your points are well-taken and stir us to many thoughts and likely in many directions. i like your initial salvo, so-to-speak, though…in terms of heresy being linked to the truth and clarity of the gospel, or as you put it: “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance.”

this is very, very much what i see (or at least saw several years ago) in the heartbeat of the emergent church: a concern for the gospel of Christ Jesus full-orbed rather than some Westernized reductionist bullet-point formula intellectually ascented to. but too often, in my own limited experience, the heresy-hunters cannot discern (or rather over-extend) the heart of the gospel and its fullness to denounce (and at times burn at the stake) those who disagree on matters of odiafera (greek for ‘indifference’)…like sabbath and feasts, and maybe much more to list here…

may we never be as the foolish Galatians, and even though surprising, or possibly not-so-surprising, Paul’s words to the Galatians stand: “But even if anyone, we ourselves or an angel from heaven, announces any gospel that is contrary to the gospel we brought to you, let him be accursed. I have said it before, and I say it again now, if anyone brings you a gospel contrary to the one you have been given, let him be accursed.”

strong words penned in a certain context with a certain relationship proceeding them…so let the interpretations fly like dice on the street corner…in a humble way

Martin, I have a question about this: is what we believe a choice? Could you decide “I’m not going to believe in God any more” if you wanted to? What would you do about the evidence (personal or otherwise) that has given you reason to believe until now? How would you change your mind and convince yourself that it’s no longer sufficient?

This is something I’ve wondered about for a while.