As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
~1 Tim 1
What is Paul warning of there? What is the false teaching being spoken of? It's not exactly clear, but we can read that the teachings described are not coming from a pure heart of love and a sincere faith, so maybe that helps.
Also, there is the reference to those who "promote controversial speculations" instead of "advancing God's work."
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
~1 Tim 6
False teachers, Paul tells us, are those who do not agree with the sound teaching of Jesus and "godly" teaching (left undefined, but we probably generally share a good notion of at least some godly teachings, things like the fruit of the Spirit, perhaps?)
They also have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels that lead to malicious talk and evil suspicions, for what it's worth.
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel...
If we died with him,
we will also live with him;
if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
if we are faithless,
he remains faithful,
for he cannot disown himself
Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.
~2 Tim 2
Here Paul lists avoiding godless chatter, quarreling about words, and not believing in Jesus' death and resurrection.
They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand...
Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness...
For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.”
~2 Peter 2
In that passage, we find a goodly numberr of more specific traits of false teachers.
1. "carousing/eyes full of adultery..." some sort of sexual sin, it would appear
2. "Experts in Greed" - those who chase after money
3. "Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them," denying Jesus as the son of God, perhaps?
4. "Not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings..." Bold and arrogant
5. In Coffman's commentary, he notes the "fabricated stories" or "feigned words" indicates those who'd deliberately teach false doctrine, not the merely deluded.
More from Coffman...
This includes reviling "magistrates," (celestial beings) as Macknight said, but much more is meant. It is a loudmouthed, blasphemous declamation against all that is high, honorable, or holy. Authority of any or all kinds is anathema to this class.
Continuing...
For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.
One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth...
They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
~Titus 1
Again, Greed is a telling characteristic of false teachers. Also "meaningless talk" and deception. We also have those here, it appears to me, who are adding to grace, by demanding IN ADDITION to being saved by grace, we also have to be circumcised.
Additionally, we have the suggestion that false teachers are liars (indicating deliberate deception - and with apologies to any decent Cretans out there...) who embrace "jewish myths" and "mere HUMAN commands."
“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. “You will know them by their fruits.
~Matt 7
That's Jesus weighing in on the topic, stating clearly that we will know them by their fruits, by their ill-behavior.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God...
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love...
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them...
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.
~1 John 4
John stating the familiar theme of knowing false prophets by their denying that Jesus was the son of God (probably referring to gnostics, who denied Jesus had an actual earthly body) and the evidence of love, for Love is from God and "EVERYONE who loves has been born of God," quite the astounding statement.
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness...
~2 Cor 11
So...
It appears to me that false teachers can be recognized
1. By their actions - by lives that are not full of grace, love, purity, self-control, kindness, gentleness, who slander and gossip and are greedy and who sexually act out.
2. by their being deliberate in their false doctrine, not speaking of those who are merely mistaken in sincerity, but blatantly lying.
3. By denying Jesus was sent of God.
4. By teachings that deny Jesus' teachings.
5. By teachings that deny Jesus' literal humanity.
For your consideration...
ADDENDUM:
I thought of another important passage, where JESUS himself was accused of being "of the Devil," suitably close to being accused of being a false teacher...
when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?
~Matt 12
So, here again, we see the measure of "good fruit," of those who live good lives, as being evidence AGAINST the "false teacher" charge. And it comes with the warning: "YOU BROOD OF VIPERS, how can you who are evil say anything good..." and "Anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."
owch. So, I would say that, while it is true it is very wrong to be a false teacher - one according to the Bible who deliberately teaches wrong teachings - but it is equally true, it seems to me, to be VERY wrong to falsely accuse someone of God to be a false teacher.
It seems that those who are false teachers can be forgiven and brought back into the family of God, but those who falsely ACCUSE of false teaching, it sounds like they can't be!
81 comments:
It is possibile to be correct 100%, knowing what God has told us. I would be 100% correct to say that adultery is wrong, and I think you'd agree with that. I would be 100% correct to say stealing is wrong. Yet if I say homosexual behavior is wrong because God said so plain and simply in Scripture, you would deny that because you refuse to accept that is what the Scripture says.
You should also understand that the Scripture does not itemize everything that is false. However, It does tell us what is true, so if anyone teaches that which opposes the truth, then that person is a false teacher.
If a person gives an identity to God or Christ which conflicts with the identity of the God or Christ in the Bible, then that person is a false teacher. For example, the Mormon God is not the God of the Bible because their god is a man who worked his way to godhood and now lives on a planet in space. While they claim to be Christians, they identify Christ as a spiritual brother to all humans and even satan - spirits that pre-existed and were born from sexual relations between their god and his wives. Their Jesus was also conceived through sexual intercourse between their god and May. Many, many differences. Yet they claim he is Jesus. One can call a dandelion a rose yet it remains a dandelion nevertheless.
If you claim your God approves of same-sex marriage or abortion, then you have a different God from that described in Scripture. Therefore you are a false teacher. Simple as that.
Glenn...
if I say homosexual behavior is wrong because God said so plain and simply in Scripture, you would deny that because you refuse to accept that is what the Scripture says.
AND, if I told you that Christians killing their enemies is 100% wrong, you would deny that because you refuse to accept what Scriptures say and so, by your measure, you are a false prophet? Is THAT what you're saying?
That is, are you saying that any Christian group who thinks another Christian group is wrong on "obvious" teachings, that they should treat that group as false teachers?
And to ask the question I asked on the previous post: Where do you draw the line between a false prophet and just some guy I disagree with?
I sort of doubt that it is the case that EVERY guy that you disagree with is someone you consider to be a false prophet, so you must have some objective line which you use to differentiate, right? What is the measure, that criteria, that line?
Or is it entirely whimsical and subjective?
Yes, I have objective standards, but I'm not getting into your game here. I made my point in response to your post.
What game? I asked a reasonable question and looked at what the Bible has to say about a topic. Where I come from, we call that Bible study.
But thanks for stopping by. I hope you can understand, though, that as far as I can see you have only confirmed that you have, at the least, no DEMONSTRATED objective reason. And, that being the case, it's hard to take your (thus far) extrabiblical hunches about "false teachers" very seriously.
Thanks again for at least stopping by.
I do have a follow up question, if you're interested:
It is possibile to be correct 100%, knowing what God has told us.
How?
That is, how is it possible for fallible human beings to KNOW that they are 100% correct on interpreting Scripture?
I believe over on your blog, you conceded that it wasn't possible to do so.
It would seem to me that, once you concede that you are a fallible, imperfect human being, that to claim that you can be 100% correct on just about anything would be a contradiction of your own position.
I did not concede that it was impossible to know Scripture is interpreted correctly. If we cannot do that, then we may as well throw the faith in the dust bin.
You again want to play games by misrepresentations. I'm done here.
Glenn...
I did not concede that it was impossible to know Scripture is interpreted correctly.
If you will notice, I said quite clearly, "I BELIEVE you indicated..." I don't have perfect recall and you apparently have too little faith in your own apologetics to let my words stand, so you deleted them and, thus, I can't quote back exactly what you said, can I?
Again, no game. That would be a false charge, or at best, a misunderstanding and misrepresentation, of what I'm doing here. I'm giving you (and anyone else who frequently uses the "false teacher" charge) a chance to make your case biblically, logically, respectfully.
You are choosing not to. So be it. Maybe one of your compatriots will take a serious shot at it.
Dan,
Anytime anyone says they have objective knowledge about anything regarding faith, you know they're simply making things up.
This isn't science, it's religion. Bad things happen when you try to apply the evidentiary requirements of science to faith and vice versa.
And frankly, as a scientist, I can definitely tell you that these days objectivity in science isn't what it once was either.
As someone once said, the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
For what it's worth, I suspect that the ultimate reason for the perhaps over-use of the "false teacher" charge lies in Glenn's words here...
If we cannot do that, then we may as well throw the faith in the dust bin.
It SEEMS TO ME that some are so fearful of not being able to make things black and white with "100%" certainty, that there case for Christianity goes down the drain.
Of course, I don't think this is the case at all. We can have our doubts, our inability to state things with 100% certainty, and still hold to a belief as reasonable.
Can I "prove" that God exists with 100% certainty? No. Does that mean God does not exist? I certainly don't think that it proves any such thing.
For what it's worth.
Alan...
As someone once said, the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
Wow. Excellent and poignant observation.
At a minimum I would suggest a #6.
6. By teachings that deny Jesus' literal divinity.
"Anytime anyone says they have objective knowledge about anything regarding faith, you know they're simply making things up."
Faith is one aspect, one teaching of Scripture. As far as Scripture speaks of faith, one can be certain of what it says. Beyond that is speculation.
But it's not a matter of having "objective knowledge about anything regarding faith", it's about having objective knowledge about what Scripture says regarding a given subject. One can be quite certain of such. Thus, one can be quite certain of when another states something opposite of what Scripture states, so that one can identify false teachers quite easily.
Marshall...
it's about having objective knowledge about what Scripture says regarding a given subject. One can be quite certain of such.
So, one can read the Bible and KNOW WITH 100% certainty what it says and what God's will is on whatever passage you might be reading, is that what you're saying?
Someone can read Leviticus and KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that ALL men who lay with men MUST BE KILLED? And there is no possibility that they could be mistaken? And they can read other places in Leviticus and know for certain that we should all grow food and leave the edges for foreigners to eat?
And no one can EVER possibly interpret ANY of those passages wrongly?
This, of course, is NOT what you think. YOU REPEATEDLY have said that you think our understanding on Scripture is mistaken, even though we have read it and honestly came away with a different conclusion on some points.
Obviously, BY YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, you think people CAN and DO read the Bible and don't get it "right" with 100% certainty.
So, ONCE AGAIN, what is your objective measure?
What is the difference between a false prophet and just some guy you disagree with?
Marshall...
Thus, one can be quite certain of when another states something opposite of what Scripture states, so that one can identify false teachers quite easily.
And so, MANY Christians throughout history (anabaptists, methodists, nazarenes, charismatics, etc) have been QUITE CERTAIN (your measure) that some people (Marshall) are teaching the opposite of what Scripture teaches (on Christians killing their enemies and the babies of their enemies, for instance), so we can "quite easily" (your measure) determine that you are a false prophet?
Is THAT what you're saying?
It seems to be, by the meager measures you've provided thus far.
Dan,
So, do you have a problem with the complete divinity of Jesus?
No.
Perhaps you've missed the many times where I've referred to Jesus, my savior, the Son of God who came lived, teaching us how to live, died and rose again?
Perhaps you've noticed that nowhere in either your list of things to ID false teachers or in your response is anything that explicitly references the divinity of Jesus.
Thanks for the clarification.
I was striving to stick to a list of things that the Bible specifically says about "false teachers." None of the options IN THE BIBLE mention that specifically.
They deny the "sovereign Lord" and "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" which to me says that Jesus was divine, but I was trying not to read into what the Bible says.
Fair enough?
So, yes, I think Jesus is divine.
100% human, 100% divine, as the old teaching goes.
I think I said I appreciate the clarification.
"Someone can read Leviticus and KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that ALL men who lay with men MUST BE KILLED?"
No. They can't. Leviticus is not all of Scripture, is it? But they can indeed know from Leviticus that to engage in that behavior is forbidden by God without any consideration for the context in which it may take place. That is absolutely certain, and Scripture in no way at any point contradicts that. It DOES, however, offer evidence that the punishment for that transgression is no longer in our hands as it once was in ancient Israel.
You are purposely skewing the point I've made. I'm referring to Scripture as the standard and Scripture can be very clear on any number of subjects to the point that bad interpretations, such as much of yours, can be corrected by honest seekers of the Truth.
And that goes to the underlying point that whether or not I can prove you are sincere, the fact remains that on those issues where we've been in conflict, you haven't provided anything approaching convincing arguments. You conclude by saying it's convincing to YOU, or that my arguments AREN'T without truly countering them. As to that, my standard has always been whether or not my concerns have been addressed. I don't defend my own by falling back on white flags like, "We can agree to disagree." or, "That's your 'hunch'." I've always been willing to change my tune. That's been a constant. But it requires an argument. In the end, I can't force anyone to see the light. They have to put God first and look rather than stubbornly accept the lamest arguments in order to carry on with their bad theology. Bad theology is to deny the sovereign Lord because it is to believe in something He does not represent or teach.
Yes, someone making a point must actually make an argument.
What's your point, Marshall, cause all I'm hearing is tapping typing with NO point.
The question remains:
What's the difference between a false teacher and "some dude I just disagree with?"
The question remains:
What objective, reasonable, biblical reason do you have for thinking someone is a false teacher? OR is it the case that you gladly admit that the reasoning is entirely whimsical and subjective?
There you go again. Your insistence that I must be engaging in the subjective and/or whimsical. If Scripture says "Thou shalt not.." with no exceptions provided anywhere in the whole Book, how am I being subjective? What could possibly be mysterious or ambiguous about "Thou shalt not..."? Are you not one of those who insist that words mean things? You, like Geoffrey, will get your panties in a knot over how I apply the word "socialist", yet "Thou shalt not..." is open to myriad interpretations?
"Some dude I just disagree with" doesn't pretend there's a loophole for a command beginning with "Thou shalt not..." that the text itself doesn't provide. A false teacher does.
Let's put it this way: Even if you are looking to be "gracious" and concede that another simply disagrees with you, if you even allow that YOU might not be correct on an issue or issues, whatever YOU believe to be true is indeed true as far as you know and thus, that person with whom you disagree is a false teacher for promoting that position with which you disagree. The false teacher will always be false relative to the other person's position or point of view. Graciousness or tolerance for disagreeing are irrelevant. One must be wrong and the other right about the issue(s) at hand. (Sure, both can be wrong, but that's besides the point.) If neither side of the issue can convince the other of their perspective, each is a false teacher relative to the other. It doesn't matter how convinced or sincere each is of his own version.
In the above, there is nothing "whimsical" or subjective if I allow that each is totally sincere in their beliefs. Yet, upon questioning another, what the other sincerely believes can be exposed as whimsical or subjective depending upon how the other supports his position. (This would be like you, claims of prayerful meditation and study notwithstanding.)
In a nutshell, a false teacher teaches that which isn't true, whether on purpose or by ignorant accident. And "some dude I just disagree with" would be someone who has offered an opinion on something that doesn't convince me while my own position isn't necessarily satisfying either. With a false teacher, there's no doubt in my mind regarding the accuracy of my belief, but the false teacher is saying something else. Glenn's example of adultery being wrong would be an example of something about which there is no doubt. There's no Scriptural example that would suggest anything else. The same with murder. The same with homosexual behavior. The last is an issue with which you disagree, but the fact remains that neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a reasonable argument to counter what I know to be true. Thus, to disagree and support an opposing opinion is to be a false teacher regardless of what you believe.
King David was an adulterer and murderer. Moses was a murderer. Rahab was a prostitute who betrayed her city. Hosea was instructed to marry a prostitute by the LORD.
Simon the Zealot was a terrorist. Matthew, also called Levi, was not only a Roman collaborator, he was a thief. St. Paul was complicit in the murder of St. Stephen.
These are some of the people God called to do the work of God. It seems to me that pointing to their moral failings without considering that God apparently didn't care all that much for them makes the one pointing look far more a scold than the God of Israel has ever been.
Thanks for finally trying to answer the question this post asked, Marshall. So, let me see if I can summarize your criteria for false teacher vs disagreement.
You said...
a false teacher teaches that which isn't true, whether on purpose or by ignorant accident.
"some dude I just disagree with" would be someone who has offered an opinion on something that doesn't convince me while my own position isn't necessarily satisfying either.
So, a false teacher is someone who teaches something (ANYTHING?) which isn't true, whether as an accident or on purpose. Thus, if YOU were wrong on any point and taught your wrong teaching somewhere (if you taught gay marriage is wrong and it turns out YOU were wrong, for instance) you would be a false teacher by your definition.
Is that your view thus far? Anyone who teaches anything that happens to be wrong, even if they do so in ignorance, is what the Bible is speaking of when it mentions "false teachers," this is what you think?
(And note the question mark - that is a question, not an assertion - for those who don't understand that concept).
You continue...
With a false teacher, there's no doubt in my mind regarding the accuracy of my belief, but the false teacher is saying something else.
So, are you saying that another sign of a false teacher is when you have "no doubt in your mind?"
So, if I have no doubt in my mind you're mistaken on some point you're teaching, you are a false teacher?
Do you understand the very subjective nature of that position?
Marshall...
Glenn's example of adultery being wrong would be an example of something about which there is no doubt. There's no Scriptural example that would suggest anything else. The same with murder...
Yes, we all agree that we are pretty certain that adultery is wrong, that murder is wrong (although we start disagreeing on that point when we start speaking of killing our enemies, don't we?)
You continued...
The same with homosexual behavior.
Well, we DON'T all agree on some matters, like gay marriage, like eschewing wealth, like killing our enemies and their children. Christians throughout the ages have disagreed on these and other topics.
Are you saying that all anabaptists should treat all non-pacifists/just peacemakers as false teachers? That all
Marshall...
The last is an issue with which you disagree, but the fact remains that neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a reasonable argument to counter what I know to be true.
Again, with the subjectivity. YOU don't think anyone has ever presented a reasonable argument. Other Christians in good faith disagree with you. Other Christians in good faith disagree with your position on killing our enemies and their children, other Christians in good faith have disagreed with your accumulate wealth position.
Are you saying all sides on all these issues should treat the other "sides" as "false teachers," whether than just someone we disagree with?
On what basis?
More whimsy?
Dan,
Before my last you asked regarding an earlier comment:
"What's your point, Marshall, cause all I'm hearing is tapping typing with NO point."
My point is what it has been, that you are working to create the ambiguity which allows any belief that suits you, when you speak of "hunches" and such, while others, like Craig, Glenn and myself are dealing in specifics that confound what you prefer to believe. But moving on...
"Thus, if YOU were wrong on any point and taught your wrong teaching somewhere (if you taught gay marriage is wrong and it turns out YOU were wrong, for instance) you would be a false teacher by your definition."
Of course. IF what I taught was not true, then it is false and to continue teaching falsehoods would make me a false teacher.
"Anyone who teaches anything that happens to be wrong, even if they do so in ignorance, is what the Bible is speaking of when it mentions "false teachers," this is what you think?"
Of course. Are you suggesting that the Bible presents an alternative definition of "false teacher" than "one who teaches that which is not true regarding the faith"? Go ahead. Make that case.
"So, are you saying that another sign of a false teacher is when you have "no doubt in your mind?""
That is an indication, yes. A "red flag" if you will. Whether or not I have doubt is determined by my study of what the Scripture says on a subject and the words it uses to that end. By itself, however, such will provoke another look at Scripture to confirm what I know to be true weighed against the counter argument presented. I'll always re-assess no matter how convinced of my position I am.
"So, if I have no doubt in my mind you're mistaken on some point you're teaching, you are a false teacher?"
Yes. To you, that is. The difficulty here, however, is whether or not you can prove your case. I don't suffer for your poor understanding. YOU do. Should you walk away unconvinced of my position and still committed to yours, your charge against me has no meaning except to you. What happens should we each lay out our arguments before a third party will tell the tale as to who is or isn't teaching truth or falsehood.
"Do you understand the very subjective nature of that position?"
That depends on the issue at hand. As I've said, we're not saying we know everything, but only that we can be confident in most of what Scripture says because it was revealed for our understanding. You might opine on an issue with which I'm unfamiliar in which case I'd have no idea of whether or not your teaching is false or true until I take enough interest in it to investigate for myself.
"Yes, we all agree that we are pretty certain that adultery is wrong..."
Except that by your arguments over these two posts, there's room for confusion and doubt because, after all, we're fallible and not capable of knowing 100% of anything, which is how you've been coming off.
"...that murder is wrong (although we start disagreeing on that point when we start speaking of killing our enemies, don't we?)"
Murder is killing, but killing isn't necessarily murder. Under what circumstances one kills one's enemies is how one determines if one has "murdered" one's enemies, which is always wrong. IF this distinction is lost on you, then you could very well be teaching falsely as regards how we relate to our enemies.
"Well, we DON'T all agree on some matters, like gay marriage, like eschewing wealth, like killing our enemies and their children. Christians throughout the ages have disagreed on these and other topics."
Well, if you're going to use our discussions on these issues, then the Christians who agree with you are teaching falsely. I would concede that on some issues (in the above set, maybe the second one) the degree of severity must be considered. Some things I would make a big deal of and other things are more important.
"Again, with the subjectivity."
You wish. It would serve your purpose for that to be the case. But the fact is that the numbers of people who agree with YOU doesn't make you correct in your position. If I was the only one who taught that God exists, then the rest of the world would be false teachers to say otherwise.
"Are you saying all sides on all these issues should treat the other "sides" as "false teachers," whether than just someone we disagree with?"
I couldn't level the charge for every situation, except to say that one is teaching falsely on a given issue if only one issue was taught improperly. If that one issue was an incredibly minor and obscure aspect of the faith that has absolutely no impact on the essentials, but everything else he taught was correct, that's just a minor, insignificant debate over a cup of coffee. If that one issue is, say, whether the only path to salvation is through Christ, yeah, that's a false teacher.
But it's always through MY perspective on which I would ever level the charge. That doesn't denote subjective reasoning on my part, but only that you insist it is because my perspective differs from yours.
I already allow for the fact that there are many perspectives about all sorts of Christianity related issues. So what? Obviously there will be a number of them that are patently false and the rest possibly false with only a small percentage approaching a decidedly acceptable understanding of what Scripture is seeking to tell us. I think what pisses you off about my answers here is the possibility that some more scholarly than myself would also find your positions patently false and it scares the hell out of you. You seem to lean on the fallibility argument as a crutch to support your shaky positions. The confidence I have in my positions offends you for its implications.
Marshall...
"Anyone who teaches anything that happens to be wrong, even if they do so in ignorance, is what the Bible is speaking of when it mentions "false teachers," this is what you think?"
Of course. Are you suggesting that the Bible presents an alternative definition of "false teacher" than "one who teaches that which is not true regarding the faith"? Go ahead. Make that case.
Yes.
The Bible does NOT speak in terms of "just some guy who I disagree with."
Rather, a false teacher is shown, in what the BIBLE says, to be as I've noted...
1. By their actions - by lives that are not full of grace, love, purity, self-control, kindness, gentleness, who slander and gossip and are greedy and who sexually act out.
2. by their being deliberate in their false doctrine, not speaking of those who are merely mistaken in sincerity, but blatantly lying.
3. By denying Jesus was sent of God.
4. By teachings that deny Jesus' teachings.
5. By teachings that deny Jesus' literal humanity.
These are the biblical parameters for recognizing false teachers. In these biblical instances, examples, we are NOT looking at just some guy who I disagree with and who honestly believes his positions are right. They are "wolves," "liars" - deliberate deceivers doing so for the money or for reasons of sensuality or for other deliberately evil reasons.
Neither you nor I fit into that description as found IN THE BIBLE. You are taking a biblical term, "false teacher" and applying it in ways that the Bible does not support.
Does that make you a false teacher?
Ironically, yes, by YOUR standards.
But no, not according to the Bible.
You see, the problem with your way (setting aside the extrabiblical nature of your position) is that it results in a hellish, divided world of constant turmoil and grief.
If all those who disagree with us are "false prophets," and it's our obligation to go around denouncing false prophets, then we'll all be spending all our time going around denouncing one another.
No thanks. I'll take grace.
"No thanks. I'll take grace."
Look at your points 3,4 & 5 of your 9:58PM comment. Do you honestly think anyone can teach in that manner totally mistaken in sincerity and not be a false teacher?
You insist on some Biblical passage that uses or describes the term in some specific manner that could not then be dismissed as you dismiss anything else that hasn't aligned with your position? Can you please set this whole thing up a bit more in your favor?
There's nothing extra-biblical about my position. (And really, the idea of YOU suggesting that I'M going outside the Bible to support my position is absolutely laughable.) Are we not to tell the truth? Is it really truthful to say that falsehoods aren't false if sincerely believed? Is that your position? Are you saying that because one truly believes the falsehood he is preaching that it is then not false? If someone truly believes that 2+2=14, is it not still false?
"If all those who disagree with us are "false prophets,""
I don't believe that I used mere disagreement with ME as a definition of "false teachers" OR prophets. I speak of those whose teachings disagree with Scripture.
"The Bible does NOT speak in terms of "just some guy who I disagree with.""
Good. I never said it did.
"These are the biblical parameters for recognizing false teachers."
But it is hardly exhaustive. 2 Tim 3:13 says,
"But evil people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves."
or are you going to insist that since the words "false teacher" do not appear here that the verse is useless for our purposes? If so, what are deceivers if not false teachers. You are taking a most narrow view of the term so that it fits your narrative regarding what you insist is true about positions you support. There is far more in the Bible regarding false teaching than that small list of yours.
Marshall...
There's nothing extra-biblical about my position.
Then make your case for your position.
Just say...
The Bible says that "false teachers" include people who are sincerely mistaken on non-critical/extra-biblical topics in...
And make your case as a biblical case.
I don't think you can because I don't think you can find that in the Bible, but if you can, go for it.
Marshall...
I don't believe that I used mere disagreement with ME as a definition of "false teachers" OR prophets. I speak of those whose teachings disagree with Scripture.
No, you speak of those who disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture.
Your mistake is in conflating YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture with God's will.
You see, as I have pointed out, I recognize that Just Peacemaking/Christian pacifism is what I - DAN TRABUE - consider to be a reasonable conclusion to draw from Scripture and I can't really see how one can get anything else from it. BUT, it remains MY INTERPRETATION of Scripture.
YOU THINK the Bible teaches gay marriage is wrong, failing to see that this is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture. You are conflating your extrabiblical hunch about a topic with the "word of God," and that is where you err, it seems to me.
Some here keep saying, "Thou shalt not is good enough for me..." but the Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not engage in gay marriage" or "thou shalt not live simple lives content with what you have..." These are EXTRAPOLATIONS of what Scripture says and means.
There is a world of difference between "God says..." and "It is my understanding that the Bible is clear..."
Here is how someone responded to my request on their blog...
I have thoroughly documented in the past why I wouldn’t waste my time with your request. Anyone who can simultaneously claim we can’t be sure about God’s word yet quote it authoritatively when it suits him is not to be trusted.
And anyone who insists they read the Bible and find support for their pro-gay theology and pro-legalized abortion views, among other things, is even more suspect.
No matter what biblical reasons anyone provides you’ll fall back on your “we can’t be sure!” reasoning (sorta like Marty has done today).
So now you can claim another person won’t make a serious attempt to answer your questions. Release some endorphins and enjoy your martyr status.
In short, they did not take it seriously, did not make their case and chose demonization and ad homs over serious Christian discussion.
In a second comment, they mentioned...
I’d point out Acts 17:11 to him but it would fall on deaf ears.
Acts 17 says...
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Which, ironically, is exactly what I asked this person to do: To "examine the Scriptures" and make their case for their use (abuse, overuse) of the term "false prophet."
Ironically, again, this is perhaps the person whom I've met who MOST uses/abuses the term. And they respond to a request for the biblical justification by ad homs and by not providing it.
I'll let the ad homs and non-defense stand for what it's worth.
But aside from indeed playing the martyr as Neil accurately suggested, you miss the point of his excerpt from Acts. The Bereans examined Scripture to see if what Paul said was true. Apparently they had no trouble understanding Scripture in finding Paul trustworthy in his teaching, and there is no mention of any difficulty or disagreement between them. How can this be? Were the Bereans infallible that they could dare suggest they had "perfect" enough understanding to judge the quality of Paul's teaching? Or did mankind simply grow more fallible in the last 2000 years?
I'm glad you pointed to the verses in 1 John; that's what I immediately thought of.
I'm not sure I completely agree with your addendum. I think it is a different thing to speak out against Jesus Christ himself verses falsely accusing someone of false teaching. And I know the sin mentioned here is rejecting the Holy Spirit. They saw Christ himself and rejected him, I think this is a different matter altogether than accusing a man of false teachings - those people haven't rejected Christ/the Holy Spirit - although they could effectively work against him(them) by maybe being divisive.
And remember, Paul lived his life by persecuting Christianity and killing those who believed in it, but he was able to come to Christ afterward. What made him different than these other Pharisees? (maybe he didn't attribute it to the devil, but if not God, then who?) I don't know. This whole passage is a tough one, one of the toughest in scriptures. So I don't know if we can fairly say that those who falsely accuse people of being false are doomed. Interesting thoughts though.
While he didn't always practice it, ever since I first read it, I have agreed with Karl Barth's expression of how to conduct discussions in and of the faith: "In large matters, do not give ground; in small matters, do not argue; in all instances, keep my pipe lit." With regard to the centrality of the Biblical witness, the Incarnation, the efficacy of Divine Grace as all-sufficient (as witnessed to in Scripture), and that this grace covers our ignorance and erroneous exploration of that Word and word (much like the way St. Paul discusses the Spirit's intercession in human prayer, taking our mumblings and grunting and making them clear to God) - these are the things I hold dear. Pretty much anything else - ecclesiology, various ethical teachings, the status and role of women within the church; these are just examples - is disputed and disputable territory. I always lead by saying my understanding of these matters is rooted in a particular reading of Scripture, and that this reading has merit for a variety of reasons.
It is all well and good to insist that one's faith is in line with various historical and doctrinal realities. Alan, for example, is clear that he comes from a deep immersion in the Reformed tradition. As a United Methodist, I find comfort in the Arminian tradition extending from John Wesley to various United Methodist teachers (as well as Reformed; he second-largest denomination represented among Wesley's faculty during my time there was UCC and I came to appreciate their perspective rather than get all anti-Calvinist on them). There are other traditions, from the Roman through the Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac, Marionite, Pentecostal, Evangelical, that all have validity, feed the larger river that is Christian thought, and remind us of the very limited nature of our own perspectives.
To venture out and call anyone, in particular some man or woman writing on the Internet, a "false teacher", based solely on one's exposure to various typings that appear in blogs or comments, is ridiculous, treason to grace.
Well put, Geoffrey.
Chance! Good to hear from you, although I think I disagree with your disagreeing with me on the Jesus text. Seems to fit to me pretty well.
'Course, I can't prove it.
"To venture out and call anyone, in particular some man or woman writing on the Internet, a "false teacher", based solely on one's exposure to various typings that appear in blogs or comments, is ridiculous, treason to grace."
Overstated, overly dramatic, over the top, over blown or any variation thereof. It's also a somewhat dishonest depiction of what's been going on.
First of all, the blogosphere has long been a mixing of people who compare notes and discuss opinions on a variety of subjects by invitation more than anything else. I say this because I don't believe that aside from very personal diary-type blogs, most people expect their musings to be read, and the fact that the words "Leave your comment" beckon discourse.
Thus, there is no "venturing out" as if one seeks someone with whom they can engage in name calling of any sort.
But in the course of engaging in debate and discussion one can match the opinions of a participant with the words of whatever source material upon which that participant bases his opinion. Should said participant be found to be misinterpreting plainly stated points or teachings, defends that misinterpretation vigorously as if true while failing to adequately tie together gaps in reasoning easily detected by those to whom he has expressed his opinions, and has done so over a period of years, the appellation applies itself.
Marshall, it is not over the top to say that the limited nature of internet discussion - even as occurs over time - hardly allows for either clarity or breadth to make any judgments about the views of others. On particular issues, sure, we can make it clear that we are, say, pro-life or pro-gun control. These aren't clues to another person's larger perspective, who that person is in general, or anything else from which to make the judgment that one is, or is not, a "false teacher".
Further, differences of opinion on the ethical consequences of Christian faith, what you, Art, continue to call "morality", are not evidence of falsity in teaching. Considering the wide variety of views on anything from the place of women to pacifism to sexual ethics - the list is endless - that exists across time and space in the history of the Christian faith, disagreement on one or another of these points isn't what makes one a false teacher. On this, at least, St. Paul in particular is clear. Since neither Dan, nor Alan, nor I, nor several others I could mention on our side; you, Art, Mark, even Neil would certainly not deny the reality of the Incarnation, the efficacy of the crucifixion/resurrection as a real event for the salvation of all Creation; that participation in this event, made real in baptism, makes of believers new creatures, changed, birthing toward the New Creation that is the Kingdom of God - I would not call any of us "false teachers". While ignorance and difference abound, that, too, does not make one a false teacher.
That is not at all "over the top". On the contrary, deciding, based on the very limited evidence available in blogs, that anyone is such is over the top.
As Alan pointed out, it seems clear in the context of these "false teacher" teachings, that Paul, Peter, etc were very familiar with the context of the people and circumstances they were critiquing.
I think Geoffrey's point is that, even in as many words as some of us write, there is insufficient evidence generally speaking for someone to reach a informed decision about the lives of others they barely know. For all I've written and that Craig has read me, for instance, he THOUGHT what I wrote was clear "from my words," and yet his conclusion of my opinion was incorrect.
Poor understanding on his part? Poor exposition on my part? A combination, perhaps? Yes, all of the above. The point is, one can't read a few words and always make an informed decision. There are people's whole lives to consider, the context of their teaching, their motives... all of which are hard to discern (as the evidence repeatedly shows) in the bloggy context.
Paul, et al, were able to KNOW, apparently, that not only were the people teaching falsely, but they knew the MOTIVES of the "false teachers," that they were teaching for motives of greed, sensuality and deliberately lying. None of which is true in the cases of our own lives,
But some can't tell that in this context and make presumptions that aren't borne out by reality. Thus, I think Geoffrey's point is quite clear and supported by real world evidence.
One perhaps salient point raised by "anonymous" on the previous post was...
I'd say the level of impact.
Anonymous went on to describe three teachers, one he agreed with, one he disagreed with but saw no real harm in his teachings and a third whose teaching led to "damnation," he said. BECAUSE of the level of harm in the third teacher, he would call THAT "wrong" teacher a false teacher but the other "wrong" teacher just mistaken.
While I see no direct biblical support for this hunch, it sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
If a teacher is teaching that it's good and Godly to kill and torture our enemies wherever they may be found, then there is a level of harm being accomplished in that teaching that makes it especially heinous. If a teaching drives people away from the faith (as Jesus suggested that the Pharisees sometimes did by their adding on of rule upon rule...
[they] tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them...)
So what of the teachers whose harsh judgmentalism (a "bad" judgmentalism, not a prudent judging of all things)legalistic teachings of God - one which adds "human commands" stacked on top of God's grace as requirements for salvation - whose words are lacking in love and grace and so venomous that they bite and cut, harming others (I'm thinking here of the very real damage that I've seen firsthand towards our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters inflicted by preachers, churchy folk and family members) which drives folk away, damaged and cynical, from the faith?
There are some real consequences to such teachings, seems to me. Do those rise to the level of "false teaching" because of the "level of impact?"
" These aren't clues to another person's larger perspective, who that person is in general, or anything else from which to make the judgment that one is, or is not, a "false teacher"."
Indeed. Particularly when the assumptions about people made by those who hurl the BS cliche false teacher epithet around are 1) almost always wrong, and 2) almost always based on assuming the absolute worst possible things about anyone.
I disagree with person X about topic Y, therefore they assume that I don't believe in any traditional doctrine, that I kill kittens in my spare time, and that I work for the takeover of the earth by an evil alien invasion force. Of course they're wrong. (Theologically, I'm about as traditional as they come, and I do not eat kittens.) But they are sure they know better than we do what we believe.
Such pride and arrogance permeates everything they write.
"Indeed. Particularly when the assumptions about people made by those who hurl the BS cliche false teacher epithet around are 1) almost always wrong, and 2) almost always based on assuming the absolute worst possible things about anyone."
Exactly. This is why I find the charge "immoral" to be ludicrous. As far as I know - and that isn't very far - none of us are immoral in any understanding of the word of which I am aware. Yet, it is repeated, not because of any actual evidence, but rather because (horror of horrors) I, and Alan, do not dehumanize gay folk, wish to deny them equal civil and legal rights, and see them as equal children of God. This is immoral? I continue to fail to understand that. Not because I'm stupid. Rather, because it is marvelously moral to treat all human beings this way! Only in Bizarro-world is acting moral the essence of immorality.
Your note about how traditional you are in your theology reflects my own position as well. Which is why my adoption of Mark's description of my blog as "blasphemous" is a source of irony and hilarity. I know of few whose approach to doctrine is as traditional (yet, curiously, not Reformed!) as mine. And they call me blasphemous. . . Ridiculous.
And still you three raise points that are not even accurate about anyone who's used the term, or about how to define the term.
I don't restrict myself (and I'm sure others don't as well) to what you folks consider to be Biblical definitions (as if they are comprehensive). It's really quite simple: a false teacher is one who teaches that which is false. For me, that's it. How much or on what topic is a limitation YOU subjectively place on the term.
A local preacher put it this way: Suppose you took a picture of your wife (Alan--feel free to sit this one out) and having it before you you decide to airbrush any aspects of her face that you personally find displeasing or upon which could be improve upon. Then you showed her the result. In other words, you've given back to her an image that is not quite her. You've changed her and despite your intentions, she's offended because you dared to do so rather than accept her as she is.
That, I thought, was a good description of what some folks do with Scripture and although the main aspects of the face remained unchanged, it is no longer the same person.
One could add that if you altered the appearance without knowledge but claimed it is a picture of your wife to whomever you present it, you would still be presenting a false image nonetheless.
If you are teaching something that isn't true, then you are a false teacher, plainly and simply.
There are no assumptions made that are not based on the words they use to express their opinions and beliefs. When someone, like Dan for example, continues to express his opinion about what Scripture says or doesn't say, or finds what he thinks supports his position when it doesn't, yet he continues, I don't need to imagine anything regarding the rest of his life. His words on the subject regarding his position is all that we can go on and as long as it conflicts with Scripture, he is furthering a false teaching on that particular subject. If that given subject is all that is in conflict, he has presented a skewed image that is false, even if only a little bit. If only a little bit, it is still false, being taught by him by virtue of his public expression of the position, and therefor he is teaching falsely, making him...
more later
Marshall...
That, I thought, was a good description of what some folks do with Scripture and although the main aspects of the face remained unchanged, it is no longer the same person.
The problem, Marshall, is you are making an extrabiblical definition. You are the one "repainting" the scripture so that it looks like something not found in the scripture.
If we were using the term, "False teacher" in a vacuum - ie, not related to the Bible - then yes, a false teacher would be someone who teaches something that is false, by definition.
But the Bible uses the term to describe something specific, and THAT is what I'm getting at. By your definition, EVERYONE EVERYWHERE would be a false teacher to someone at some point. And, at that point, your definition of "false teacher" becomes meaningless. If EVERYONE is a false teacher, then what does it mean? Not much.
And certainly not much that resembles what's painted in the Bible.
That was a good analogy, just a poor application of who it's describing.
As to Art's understanding of "false teacher", and your response, Dan - he doesn't quite get it, but at least he admits he isn't "restricting" himself to "Biblical definitions". The difference, I think, is refuses to grant your central premise in this and the previous thread - that you are exploring the issue of what constitutes "a false teacher" as the Bible uses the term. Art isn't happy with that, but at the very least he could grant for the sake of the two posts that we will restrict ourselves in this way because that is the whole point of the posts.
As for the preacher's analogy, I'm not impressed by it at all. Fake imagery is not at all the same as being a false teacher. We rely on fake imagery all the time, and set aside the fakery as fake for the sake of its larger purpose. There is no moral content in a faked image. It is what it is.
A false teacher, on the other hand, as the Bible expounds on this particular creature, is not a morally-empty medium for an image. Rather, a false teacher is one who knowingly and deliberately denies the incarnation, the efficacy of the crucifixion/resurrection, the all-sufficiency of grace, the New Birth in baptism. Regardless of motive - evil intent? money? power? - a false teacher is a very specific person saying very specific things.
None of which, by the way, our esteemed host, nor any of his guests, have ever done.
Art, you may betray your ignorance; you may display your bigotry; you may strut your simple-mindedness - but I would never call you a false teacher.
Marshall, no more ad homs against my visitors. You have something to say to me, say it to me. I need to insist that you all speak more politely to the visitors.
For the record, if a visitor here said to you, Marshall, "I've got a question for those who know about working - Marshall, you can sit this one out..." I'd come down on them, too.
Grow up and learn to speak respectfully if you want to visit here. I've had enough.
"Grow up and learn to speak respectfully if you want to visit here."
Apologies. I keep forgetting the one-way-street nature of your policies. The fact is, you have NOT come down on your allies the same way you're now coming down on me. All manner of evil intent has been leveled in my direction all because I disagree. I'm called hateful, bigoted, "busybody" and other various things either directly or not so covertly. None of it bothers me. Your pretense of even-handedness is beginning to. I mean, really. As if this
"I've got a question for those who know about working - Marshall, you can sit this one out..."
isn't a veiled reference to my current employment situation. BTW, that's really a goofy example since the fact that I may or may not be employed now doesn't mean I never was or haven't ever worked in some form or fashion.
Regarding false teachers, you all fail by the assumption that anyone leveling the charge felt compelled to use the term as you want to use it. You fall back on a specific description, under which you still fall, in order to carry on as usual.
Geoffrey said (early enough to have qualified for a chastisement from Dan an hour and a half later that never came--but I got one. How gracious!):
"Art, you may betray your ignorance; you may display your bigotry; you may strut your simple-mindedness - but I would never call you a false teacher."
That's because you could not do so honestly anymore than you could prove I've been ignorant, bigoted or simple-minded, Mr. Ad hom. I am not ignorant about those issues upon which I debate. My position on them does not suggest bigotry or simple-mindedness, but a pure and sound understanding of the issue. Anytime any of you would like to try to prove otherwise, either here or anywhere, just let me know.
Now, as to my definition, it also is pure and sound. It defines the term by the meaning of the words being used. Dan thinks that by this definition, anyone could be accused. Sure, but could they be accurately accused? That would depend on how distant the teaching is from Scripture. But you cover yourself with the standard "human fallibility" in order to deny arguments against positions you've come to cherish for whatever reason.
But here's a point I've been meaning to bring up and now's as good a time as any. Dan's (and by extension Al and Geoff) entire defense is this human fallibility argument. It's always a matter of whether the other guy is going on a "hunch" or has any real capability of understanding. In essence, he is saying to his opponent much like the serpent to Eve, "Did God really say that?" "Is that really what Scripture says?" "Are you sure?" "What if you're wrong?" "Isn't it possible you could be wrong?"
Those of us who debate and discuss in good faith regard the possibility of error as a given that goes without saying. But we have Scripture to support our position and go from there.
But I'm the one regarded as ignorant or simple-minded. You all wish. You can make such accusations with a straight face and then I have to read this:
"It seems to me that pointing to their moral failings without considering that God apparently didn't care all that much for them makes the one pointing look far more a scold than the God of Israel has ever been."
How can you possibly show that God didn't care about the moral failings of the various characters that were listed? What an ignorant and simple-minded person one must be to read that and believe it. But Geoffrey likes to discount immorality despite the fact that it shows up in Scripture quite often and always connected to the sexual. Go ahead and look it up. We are told to flee from it. Geoffrey thinks it ain't no thang. Me ignorant? Right.
Art: "How can you possibly show that God didn't care about the moral failings of the various characters that were listed? What an ignorant and simple-minded person one must be to read that and believe it. But Geoffrey likes to discount immorality despite the fact that it shows up in Scripture quite often and always connected to the sexual. Go ahead and look it up. We are told to flee from it. Geoffrey thinks it ain't no thang. Me ignorant? Right."
This paragraph sums up pretty much everything I have said, again and again and again. First of all, I do not "discount immorality" - it's usually free! Second, the point precisely is that God called these people (and so many more) even in the midst of their "immorality". As for being "sexual", um, no. Moses murdered an Egyptian overseer. Joseph's brothers sold him to slavery out of jealousy. Jacob stole Esau's birthright because his mother was a scheming, conniving woman. Rahab betrayed Jericho because she knew the city would fall and wanted to side with the winners. Jesus told Zacchaeus he would dine at his house, even as the little man was still a traitor to his people, still skimming off the top (the only way tax collectors could make money), and we do not read where Jesus first told him to behave himself.
God meets us where we are. What you call "immorality" is hardly a barrier to God's call; if it were, no one would be asked to do God's work. Furthermore, if God demanded moral purity from us after the Divine encounter, why would we need the crucifixion/resurrection?
Your argument hinges on a couple things, not the least of which is this odd focus on sex. As to your working definition of "false teacher", I agree it does work. Except it isn't the one Dan is working with, the one found in Scripture. That you either do not get that, or will not acknowledge it, well it's no skin off my nose, but it would be nice if, at the very least, you admitted that is part of the problem here.
Marshall...
Your pretense of even-handedness is beginning to. I mean, really. As if this
"I've got a question for those who know about working - Marshall, you can sit this one out..."
isn't a veiled reference to my current employment situation.
That, in case you missed the point, was an example of me stooping down to your level of dialog. It becomes ugly as hell when we start making snide remarks about someone's personal life and I'll have no more of it here. Let's discuss ideas, not people.
"Even-handed" is letting you three (or all of us, as the shoe fits) go back and forth trading demeaning remarks about each others' ideas. Start engaging in personal attacks beyond the ideas, and I won't allow that. I wouldn't allow it if someone did it to you and your personal life and won't allow you to do that about someone else, not on my blog.
Marshall...
you all fail by the assumption that anyone leveling the charge felt compelled to use the term as you want to use it.
Correction: As the BIBLE uses it, which was the point of this post. You want to expand it to mean any and everything, and that's fine if you want to discuss "false teachers" in a vacuum. I'm speaking in these posts of how it is used in the Bible.
Dan, either he doesn't get it, or is ignoring that really simple reality. You've told him that. I've told him that. Over and over.
As I suggested but no one chose to check it out, the word "immorality" in the Bible is always used in conjunction with the sexual. In other words, the Bible's definition of "immorality" only suggests the sexual. So, as I said, you only allow definitions that you prefer. What's more, you haven't shown that your verses dictate the only way to define the term "false teacher", but have only given examples of how they might be identified. It's the same old story with you guys. You play fast and loose with Scripture as well as definitions in order to control the outcome of discussions to your advantage. I, on the other hand, and I believe those who argue from the same perspective as I do, aren't looking to control outcomes, but to guide people to the truth as we have let the truth guide us.
So no, I don't want to define the term to mean any and everything. That's ass backwards from what I'm actually doing. I'm using the term as strictly as possible based on the actual meaning of the words. If you are supporting positions that is in conflict with Scriptural teaching, which you are, then you are teaching that which is false. And THAT makes you a false teacher. To defend against the charge, you need to prove that your position is sound from a Biblical point of view. You haven't.
"God meets us where we are. What you call "immorality" is hardly a barrier to God's call; if it were, no one would be asked to do God's work. Furthermore, if God demanded moral purity from us after the Divine encounter, why would we need the crucifixion/resurrection?"
Thanks Geoffrey. Do you have any other arguments against points I've never made? As to the last bit, the answer is, because we are not capable of perfection. We are corrupt. We cannot provide the wages our sinful natures demand of us. Maybe you missed that part of the whole need for Christ thing in whatever you call an education. Yet, the demand for purity still exists to the extent that we are not given leave to indulge in the impure by anything that God has ever done for us.
"That, in case you missed the point, was an example of me stooping down to your level of dialog."
No it wasn't. It was a chance for you to give me a cheap shot under the cover of "...an example of me stooping down to your level of dialog." Who do you think you're playin' with here? What's more, it shows your concern for "grace" in discussions is hollow far more a burden on those with whom you disagree. This:
"I wouldn't allow it if someone did it to you and your personal life and won't allow you to do that about someone else, not on my blog."
...is not a reflection of reality.
Art - we just have differing views on what constitutes "morality", differing views on its role in our relationship with God (and God's relationship with us), and place different emphases on what constitutes a moral life. I do not, nor have I ever, advocated immorality, nor have I sought to defend such a view from Scripture. Had I, surely the charge of "false teacher" would be true. That there are enough people on the internet who find the stuff I say on such topics agreeable to keep me writing about them on occasion tells me that I am not the only person who thinks that way.
As I wrote yesterday in a post, it is not the case that our behavior is irrelevant to God. On the contrary! St. Paul insists we are to be blameless before other persons and God! Yet, what counts is not whether or not we insist on moral purity, because this is something always changing. Rather, what counts is our living in love toward others. Feeding the hungry, being with those imprisoned, clothing the naked - even laying down our lives if the moment comes. Done not because we have to, because God will send us to hell if we don't. Rather, we do it out of love, and as the author of the Epistle of John writes, if we love, we are of God, and we love because God first loved us.
These are all points I have made over and over again through the years, marvelously traditional, wonderfully orthodox, and yet you insist on calling me immoral, and some others blasphemous and a false teacher. Do you understand my frustration, or do you choose to ignore this reality - the reality of the things I've said (not to mention the life I live) - for what you believe you know about me?
The problem, it seems, is not mine. It isn't Dan's. It isn't Alan's. No matter how often we write it, you continue to insist you know us better than we know ourselves, and that we are immoral creatures, advocating positions contrary to the Gospel and tradition. The weight of evidence, it should be clear, is with us. What say you?
I say you follow what pleases you.
"Yet, what counts is not whether or not we insist on moral purity, because this is something always changing."
Moral purity is defined by God and has NOT changed. If anything, it has been tightened up and clarified by Jesus Himself. So I've made no untrue comments on the quality of your beliefs and those of Dan's. Thus your frustration is a result of constant reminders of the greater reality. I guess I'd be frustrated, too.
Moral purity is not defined by God. Jesus did not "tighten it up". You are just making that up.
That's my response. I honestly don't care whether you agree or disagree with it, like it or dislike it. This is just reality.
"One perhaps salient point raised by "anonymous" on the previous post was...
'I'd say the level of impact.'"
The type of christianity modeled by bloggers such as Neil, Mark, Marshall, etc had quite a level of impact on my life several years ago. I almost turned my back on the Christian faith that I had professed for over 50 years. In recent years, since the 80s, christianity seems to have changed, or at least my former denomination (Southern Baptist) changed. It seems more like nationalism than faith. You had to start dotting your I's and crossing your T's the same way doctrinally and politically to be considered a real christian. If you came/come to different conclusions regarding the interpretation of Scripture, your salvation is questioned....always. I thought...if this is what Christianity is....or what is has become...I want no part of it.
"Moral purity is not defined by God. Jesus did not "tighten it up". You are just making that up."
All right and wrong is defined by God. Who else has the authority to determine such things for us? God gave us commandments, remember? Did those not set the parameters for proper behavior, or are they just helpful hints? And did your decades of Biblical study not include Christ equating lust to adultery and hate to murder? I'd call that "tightening up" quite a bit God's moral and behavioral mandates, wouldn't you? (Rhetorical question. Of course you wouldn't. The real question is on what basis would you not?)
BTW, thanks for the defense, Dan, but I'm not so fragile that I cannot take MA's lame potshots. This is the same guy who loves to refer to gay people as homos or fags or whatever.
What do you expect when you engage with such people?
And, if the worst he can do is try to insult me by stating something true, well, my only response is "meh." Next, to show off his remarkable intellect, he'll be calling me four-eyes. LOL
Oh, Al. You're such a cut-up! "Four eyes!" Oh, ho ho! You're a stitch!
The truth is that I don't refer to gay people by anything but happy, since that's what the word means. Why I'd refer to a happy person as "homo" or "fag I couldn't begin to say.
Actually, I don't generally use the term "fag" in public discussions, except to say that I'm not all that concerned that sinners might be called various derogatory terms. In the grand scheme of things, it should be the least of their concerns. But I'd be more concerned with the application of such terms to those who are not guilty of the behavior associated with them. An example would be to label someone a hateful bigot who has shown nothing to justify it. Another would be "busybody" and "fussbudget". However, what words I use amongst close associates and why is something you can only imagine, and I wouldn't be surprised if you'd imagine the worst.
As to "homo", I use it freely. Contractions of larger words are more convenient. Pardon me if I do not oblige the corrupted by using improperly words they prefer. On second thought, I don't much care if you pardon me or not.
To be more precise, what I'd love to refer homosexuals as is "repented". I don't "love" calling them "sinners" or "immoral". I regard it as sad and I wish better for them.
More yap, yap, yapping from MA.
I'm not sure what's sadder, his need to make half-assed third-grade attempts at insults, or his need to spend so much time rationalizing and defending his lame insults.
Is it an insult to call a thief a sinner? Is it an insult to call him a thief? The word "thief", or any of its synonyms, are words long attached to the behavior. The behavior is considered sinful in the Christian faith. In discussions on the subject, where is the insult in using the proper terminology?
I do nothing more or less when using the terms I do. I use them as they are defined and in those cases where I use a contraction, it is, as I've said, for convenience. I'm so very sorry you have a problem with the truth.
Yap, yap, yap indeed.
So, since we're just using words as they're defined, you'll stop objecting to the terms bigot, hater, fusspot, busybody, tattletale and scold as applied to you.
I'll keep that in mind. Great. Thanks.
Apparently, you're not much better than Geoffrey with getting the point. As the first paragraph of my last comment clearly indicates, the words must be properly applied. If a person hasn't stolen, to call that person a thief is an improper application of the word.
In the meantime, you couldn't, if your life depended upon it, show how I've ever displayed bigotry against or hate of another person. I don't fuss over trifles, so fusspot doesn't apply to me. I'm not a busybody because I don't butt into anyone's personal life (to decry a behavior is not inserting myself into any specific person's personal life). On whom have I been tattling and to whom? And really, if either of us fits the dictionary definition of a scold, it would be you, you excitable boy.
"In the meantime, you couldn't, if your life depended upon it, show how I've ever displayed bigotry against or hate of another person."
What you mean to say is that I couldn't, if my life depended on it, formulate a complete list of all the bigotry or hate you've displayed since that would involve nearly every comment I've ever read from you.
Whatever. You couldn't do it because there is no bigotry in anything I've ever published. Give it a try, Chuckles. I dare ya. You've obviously got me confused with someone like yourself.
"As to "homo", I use it freely."
QED. One of a million examples. You've already shown that you can't read examples even when they're your own quotes, so I won't bother with more.
I do not believe, MA, that no matter how clear and irrefutable the evidence, that you are ever going to think you are a bigot. I dare say there isn't a single person who reads or comments here who believes that, regardless of the evidence on anything, you would ever change your mind about anything.
That is simply something you would never consider in a million years. While I enjoy poking you because you're a jester and buffoon, you're still too stupid to notice that I do not attempt to argue with you or provide evidence for anything because that would be a waste of time. I don't argue with my neighbor's dog either, and it has displayed any number of behaviors that demonstrate it to be more intelligent than you.
But you write stupidity that makes me laugh, so I enjoy encouraging you.
Your next step in your oh-so-pedantic-and-obvious rhetorical style is to claim "victory" of some weird kind. (That you are forever doing so does make one wonder about what shallow and pathetic life you lead when "victory" in a comment thread gets actually means something to you. But whatever. Proceed. It's your turn to play your part in this play you never realize you're in.
In other words, MA, this fish don't rise to cheap bait.
But please continue. I have a bet going with myself that I can get you to ramble on to at least 100 comments in all three of these threads.
Jump MA! Come on, jump! Good dog.
"QED. One of a million examples."
You've demonstrated only that you see what you want to see. I've stated repeatedly that my use of the term "homo" is merely a contraction of the word "homosexual" and you damned well know it. That you choose to regard it as derogatory is a personal problem likely requiring counseling. I refuse to replace the term with a word that means "happy" just because you want it to mean something else. You'll just have to find a way to deal. As such, my use of the term in no way implies bigotry except in your delusions.
"You've already shown that you can't read examples even when they're your own quotes, so I won't bother with more."
Cheap cop out. You couldn't find examples if your life depended upon it.
"I do not believe, MA, that no matter how clear and irrefutable the evidence, that you are ever going to think you are a bigot."
Two reasons for this:
1--I'm not a bigot.
2--You've yet to provide anything remotely comparable to "clear and irrefutable evidence". That's OK. It can't be done if it doesn't exist, which it doesn't.
"I dare say there isn't a single person who reads or comments here who believes that, regardless of the evidence on anything, you would ever change your mind about anything."
That's likely true. There hasn't been anything to read that would indicate there's been compelling and "irrefutable" evidence that would provoke such a change. But I have changed my mind about you. I used to think you were merely sad and misguided.
"While I enjoy poking you because you're a jester and buffoon, you're still too stupid to notice that I do not attempt to argue with you or provide evidence for anything because that would be a waste of time."
Cheap cop out. You couldn't find examples if your life depended upon it.
"I don't argue with my neighbor's dog either, and it has displayed any number of behaviors that demonstrate it to be more intelligent than you."
I'm betting it demonstrates that it can provide better quality insults that you can, too.
"Your next step in your oh-so-pedantic-and-obvious rhetorical style is to claim "victory" of some weird kind."
You mean like "Checkmate!" or "Game, set and match!"? Any success that my words persuade you away from your false and sinful beliefs is not my victory, but God's. It pains me for His sake that I've not been successful.
"In other words, MA, this fish don't rise to cheap bait."
My first thought was to say that bottom feeders usually don't, but I don't think Dan would like it.
This is too easy! Thanks for playing, MA.
Try again, and let's see if we can make it to 100 comments! LOL
In respect for a specific request by our host, little Alan, I can no longer "play" with you. As always, you are more than welcome to comment on my blog, where you will be treated with far more respect and fairness than you are used to. But yes, poor boy. It is too easy to posture one's self as having the upper hand after having given no proof that you actually have it. Another symptom perhaps of your condition.
"As always, you are more than welcome to comment on my blog, "
Thanks. But to quote that great philosopher of our time, Weird Al Yankovic:
"I'd rather have my blood sucked out by leeches
Shove an icepick under a toenail or two
I'd rather clean all the bathrooms in Grand Central Station with my tongue
Than spend one more minute with you"
:)
"It is too easy to posture one's self as having the upper hand after having given no proof that you actually have it."
Oh, the irony. :)
""It is too easy to posture one's self as having the upper hand after having given no proof that you actually have it."
Oh, the irony. :)"
Oh! You see it too then. Good.
Alan, let it go...
... I pray for all of you who are debating these issues ... Jesus/Yeshua is very clear that we must follow his commands and most importantly love one another as He loved us ... Where is that love my brothers? In Him and Him alone! Stand firm on the scriptures and remember ... If He wouldn't do it, then don't! God bless you all!
... I pray for all of you who are debating these issues ... Jesus/Yeshua is very clear that we must follow his commands and most importantly love one another as He loved us ... Where is that love my brothers? In Him and Him alone! Stand firm on the scriptures and remember ... If He wouldn't do it, then don't! God bless you all!
Post a Comment