The points on which those who commented appeared to agree were...
We can recognize false prophets...
1. By their actions - by lives that are NOT full of grace, love, purity, self-control, kindness, gentleness, concern for the poor, etc, who instead, engage in slander and gossip and are greedy and who sexually act out (with greed being a primary cause for their preaching false teachings; that is, they preach false doctrine knowingly in order to get money).
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, is the Son of God, divine.
4. By teachings that deny Jesus' teachings.
5. By teachings that deny Jesus' literal humanity.
6. By the weight of impact of their false teaching - if they are driving people from Christianity, for instance, or are teaching doctrine that would result in damnation (ie, teaching we are NOT saved by grace through faith in Jesus, or adding human rules to the "hoops" one has to jump through in order to be saved).
7. They "quarrel about words" and "promote controversial speculations" and "have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction..." There seems to be something pretty specifically in mind when this repeated warning about quarrels, I just can't see that it's clear exactly what. Does anyone have more insight into this aspect?
8. By being intimately aware of the situation/people under consideration. In the instances in the Bible, it always seems as if the writer is speaking of some situation/person wherein the writer is well familiar with the people and the situation. This, as opposed to commenting on some random blogger/writer/speaker where you've heard a few excerpts of their writing/teaching.
9. By being an actual teacher in some venue, as opposed to some guy just espousing opinions (this one is rather vaguely defined, but perhaps worth consideration).
These are the things that it seemed most of the folk who were participating seemed to mostly agree upon.
Of those who I've met online who most use the term "false teacher," we had the least amount of support for their tendency to use the term. As we can see from those who DID offer opinions who tend to disagree with me and mine, they are offering opinions of the term not supported in the biblical text.
For the most part, those who disagree with my general gist here continue to hold to the "it's obvious" criteria for such disagreements. That is, they allow that on some topics there ARE some dudes we just disagree with and that it's okay on those topics, it's not as if they're false teachers simply because they disagree with me.
But then, the reasoning goes, on other topics, it's NOT okay to disagree with their take on a particular theme or passage because "it's obvious," and anyone who disagrees with this "obvious" teaching must be a false teacher. This is without regard to intent (ie, someone who is honestly mistaken) or, apparently for some, they think IF they teach differently than what I think on this topic, then they MUST be lying and intentionally misleading because, well, it's obvious.
Further, for these folk, by THEIR loose and whimsical definition/usage of the term "false teacher," nearly everyone becomes a false teacher. In other words, if I truly think Mr X is mistaken on a topic, AND it turns out that Mr X WAS mistaken on that topic, then he WAS a false teacher, regardless of intent. There is no grace here for human fallibility, it seems to me.
Anyone who is a teacher who mistakenly holds a wrong position on certain topics (loosely and undefined topics, vague as to the point of meaninglessness) IS a false teacher and will be held to a higher level of accountability.
According to some.
I think the biblical witness is pretty clear that intent is important.
Several of these folk who frequently use the charge "false teacher" consider themselves Christian Apologetics teachers - they aim to make a rational, biblical case for Christianity and their specific tenets they associate with Christianity. So, I would hope that these fellas could see that, with the paucity of evidence for their position (which appears to be quite loose and subjective, depending upon the whim of the "apologist" to decide who is and isn't a "false teacher") that I can see no valid reason to grant them this looser, broader, unbiblical description of "false teacher" that they appear to vaguely support.
140 comments:
In other words, there's the biblical definition of "false teacher", and then there's the definition used by nearly everyone who throws that term around: ie. someone who says something they don't like.
You could have gotten a pretty reasonable working definition of how the term is used by such folks just by watching some old SNL "Church Chat" skits.
Definition of FALSE
1
: not genuine
2
a : intentionally untrue b : adjusted or made so as to deceive (a trunk with a false bottom) c : intended or tending to mislead (a false promise)
3
: not true
4
a : not faithful or loyal : treacherous (a false friend) b : lacking naturalness or sincerity
5
a : not essential or permanent —used of parts of a structure that are temporary or supplemental b : fitting over a main part to strengthen it, to protect it, or to disguise its appearance (a false ceiling)
6
: inaccurate in pitch (a false note)
7
a : based on mistaken ideas b : inconsistent with the facts (a false position) (a false sense of security)
8
: threateningly sudden or deceptive
Definition of TEACHER
1
: one that teaches; especially : one whose occupation is to instruct
2
: a Mormon ranking above a deacon in the Aaronic priesthood
The above Merriam-Webster definitions give us the workable and universally acceptable meanings of the two words, when put together, present an easy to understand definition of the term, "false teacher": one who teaches that which is false. To label this as "whimsical" is ludicrous. It is very specific.
Now unless I've missed it, and that's possible since I'm told I only have four neurons, nothing offered in this discussion has given us a specific Biblical definition of the term. What we've been given are ways to identify false teachers and prophets (same thing basically). None of the verses claim the ways mentioned are comprehensive. Indeed, the many verses which speak of false teachers and prophets are not identical and one verse may have something more or less than the next.
I maintain, and it should be obvious to honest readers of this discussion, that Dan and his cohorts insist on the verses offered as "definitions" because none of them touch on subjects or topics which others like myself find to be less than Biblical. It allows for the ambiguity that is a hallmark of their positions Scripture which allows for whatever belief suits their personal agendas. If this were not so, they would not fall back on tired arguments of "the 'obvious' criteria", or "honestly mistaken" or "agree to disagree" or any number of other ploys that relieve them of their having to defend their positions against the many questions they provoke in others. In short, they cannot tie the loose ends, so these tactics are employed and to that list, their strict definition of "false teacher" now is added.
False: INTENTIONALLY UNTRUE.
Do you have ANY REASON at all, Marshall - ANY BIBLICAL REASON WHATSOEVER - to suppose this is not the definition being used in the Bible?
Even though this is pretty clearly what the bible is saying, you want to make it mean something else.
Do you have ANYTHING to support your hunch to make it a convincing leap from what the bible seems clearly to say to your skewed and hellish version?
If not, thanks for your comments.
The question I put to you is why do you suppose that any Biblical definition (and again, I don't see that you've made the case that the Bible has defined it in the manner you state--only that it gives ways in which a false teacher might be known) is what your accusers have in mind, as opposed to a more obvious one, which is what I have put forth? As I see it, those who have so accused you and others have simply stated that what is taught or expressed as a reasonable interpretation is false and the continued expression of the falsehood justifies the application of the term in their minds (and yes, in mine as well).
And of course, I see that you insist on definition 2, as opposed to both or either 1 & 3 which are equally fitting. You see, false can mean any of the listed definitions. There are beliefs you put forth that satisfy definitions 1 and/or 3 and the fact that you insist you believe them to be true is irrelevant to the charge by your accusers if in fact those beliefs are false. So the task is then to prove your case, argue your case to the befuddlement of your accusers, or show how THEY'RE position is false. In their minds (and mine for the most part), you have not done any of these things.
You attempt to demonstrate that you do not fit what you think is a Biblical definition rather than to defend your position against the charge on whatever topic provoked it. "Oh, I'm not a false teacher because I'm not intentionally trying to deceive anyone, but believe what it is I've been saying." But if what you are saying is deemed false, then the charge is appropriate in the minds of those who have so deemed. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Whether one is mistaken or lying, the result is the same: the info is false and the receiver of the info is put at a disadvantage. It's really quite simple. One doesn't need but four neurons to understand this incredibly simple concept.
And here's the really fun part: not one of the people I know that have used this term has done so because what you've said is something they don't like. More to the point, whether or not they like it is not due to the position simply being different, but that it is demonstrably and provably in conflict with Scripture and you have been unable or incapable of making a sound argument that changes their minds.
There's nothing skewed or hellish about this whatsoever. Except for the hell one goes through when others don't buy into their lame arguments.
This here Kentucky boy explains my position well, and uses the Bible to do it. My money is on you going with the "I don't buy it" strategy.
Dan, you're a false teacher because you don't agree with the people who call you a false teacher about what a false teacher is.
It's like Alice in Wonderland with these sorts of people.
Yep, seems that way, Alan. They know I'm wrong because, after all, they're right and thus, I must be wrong because they're right. It's sort of hard to get past that logic.
Marshall, at least that Kentucky boy made an attempt to give a biblical defense as to why he holds to a position similar to yours. An attempt, but not a good one.
First, he tries to point to two instances in the Bible where HE THINKS the writer is speaking of people who MIGHT BE only mistaken, but are still false teachers.
The first one, in Acts/Galatians is spoken of in this way...
This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
None of this sounds in the least as if he's speaking of those who are sincerely mistaken, but people who are deliberately trying to undercut the gospel of Jesus (interestingly, this is another example of those false believers who would ADD HUMAN RULES to the grace of God - one of the traits of false teachers that IS in the Bible).
The second passage he uses is in 2 Cor, which says...
For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
Again, all this sounds rather deliberate.
So, while this guy has some hunches about what these passages mean, they just don't seem to be borne out by a rational reading.
Thus, once again, if that's the best you've got, I don't find your argument (or your ad homs) convincing. Thanks for trying, though.
Marshall...
There's nothing skewed or hellish about this whatsoever.
If merely "being mistaken" on some certain undefined, vague points makes one a false teacher, then that opens us ALL up to being false teachers to SOME ONE because we all disagree with others on some points. To oppose each and everyone who disagrees with us on "points which we're sure" or however you put it would lead to behavior, well, like those who go around crying "wolf" and tearing down the body of Christ all the time.
How about this, Marshall: You have stated that not EVERY disagreement means that the "other" must be a false teacher. That sometimes the "other" can be sincerely mistaken and that's it, while other times the "other" is sincerely mistaken and is a false teacher.
Can you define for us which points one can disagree with you upon and still be a mistaken brother (in your opinion) and which points one can NOT disagree with you upon without being a false teacher? And, once you have done that, WHAT REASON would you have for the distinction? What biblical support would you have for that position?
For you see, that is my problem with the position that you seem to be supporting: It seems entirely vague, whimsical and with no consistent measure and no biblical support.
So, if you'd like, make your case on something other than, "cause I said so..."
"If merely "being mistaken" on some certain undefined, vague points makes one a false teacher, then that opens us ALL up to being false teachers to SOME ONE because we all disagree with others on some points."
I don't believe I've expressed anything about being mistaken on "undefined, vague points". If it's vague and undefined, how would I know what the hell the guy is teaching? If you mean that someone might not be sure of a particular point, then he is seeking and not teaching; merely expressing what he "thinks" is a correct belief until he can find something to confirm or deny it. Instead, it seems you've no problem throwing out a few ad homs of your own by suggesting I deal in the vague and undefined. I do not.
"You have stated that not EVERY disagreement means that the "other" must be a false teacher. That sometimes the "other" can be sincerely mistaken and that's it, while other times the "other" is sincerely mistaken and is a false teacher."
The first sentence is true. That IS something I expressed. The rest is goofy. Sincerely mistaken or not, to put forth that which is false is to teach falsehood making one a false teacher. THAT is my position. Some are false teachers because they don't know any better. They express falsehoods believing them to be true. So let's put it this way: if they are open to correction, if they can stand being shown that they have been in error without throwing a hissy fit, then they are only mistaken and now corrected. But if they insist, or continue with their false beliefs, refusing to listen to reason, insisting their faulty reasoning and incongruous and illogical explanations are sound, then they are false teachers.
As to disagreements, I would point to the ongoing debates between the Calvinist and the Arminian (not sure of the spelling of the latter). As I've been studying this debate, I can't see either side's position being definitive on the subject that separates them. There's no harm for either to maintain his position as far as I can tell at this point in my study.
Another example would be a position of yours on which we had a lengthy discussion along with Bubba. It had to do with Christ's death on the cross and the part it played in our salvation. You seem to believe that we are saved by grace alone. This is a disagreement we have, but your position is not false, merely incomplete. But if you believe that Christ's death is inconsequential to our salvation, that would be a false teaching.
So you and Alan can carry on with your "false" assessment of my position if it provides you with amusement. That's on you. But as I've demonstrated despite your dismissal, I've been very specific about what constitutes a false teacher as well as the fact that I don't base the opinion on anything Biblical. If you think that diminishes the truth of my position, that too is on you, but the truth stands nonetheless. You continue to further beliefs that are clearly in conflict with Scripture. Your level of sincerity is of no concern to me. The teachings are. They are false.
Marshall...
if they are open to correction, if they can stand being shown that they have been in error without throwing a hissy fit, then they are only mistaken and now corrected. But if they insist, or continue with their false beliefs, refusing to listen to reason, insisting their faulty reasoning and incongruous and illogical explanations are sound, then they are false teachers.
So, if someone is "open" to correction, to being shown they are mistaken, they are NOT false teachers, according to Marshall. Is that your assessment?
In that case, those of us who grew up believing gay marriage was wrong who have been "open to correction" and willing to admit error in our reasoning, we are not false teachers? Is that what you're saying?
Because it doesn't sound like you're saying that. It sounds like you're saying, "Well, I've shown you what I think about gay marriage and none of your arguments to the contrary make sense to me, and since you're not willing to change your position, therefore you're a false teacher." Which is back to that whole whimsical, flighty interpretation of the term.
As to areas where Christians CAN disagree and still not be false teachers, you appear to offer two:
1. The ongoing debates between the Calvinist and the Arminian...
2. Various interpretations of the notion of Atonement.
So, according to Marshall, Christians can disagree on those two topics and neither side necessarily be false teachers. But what else? Surely you're not saying those two examples are the limit of where Christians can disagree.
And what is your reasoning on those two areas? "We can be mistaken on atonement and Calvinism/Arminianism because..."
Why?
What solid, consistent criteria are you relying upon?
Or is it entirely based upon your gut feelings and whimsy? Because that's all I'm seeing thus far and, I hope you'll understand, that I'm not willing to change my position based on whimsy.
I don't see that you're willing to change your opinions at all. That's fine, as you're free to believe whatever you like regardless if it is true or not. But referring to arguments you don't like as whimsy is hardly the mark of an open mind. If anyone is grounding an opinion on whimsy, it is you, for the years of debate have provided numerous opponents who have pointed out the many holes in your arguments and you've consistently failed to fill them. Your fallback position is always that the other guy is basing all on "hunches" and "gut feelings" when far more solid Scriptural support is almost always (I'm being generous here) submitted.
"So, if someone is "open" to correction, to being shown they are mistaken, they are NOT false teachers, according to Marshall."
Something like that. One who is open to correction has more of a seeker's attitude and likely is not within himself totally settled on the issue being discussed. But one who is certain and unmovable needs something more convincing than any argument YOU'VE ever offered. One who has the truth will most always be ready and able to defend it with an argument that gives the other guy pause.
"In that case, those of us who grew up believing gay marriage was wrong who have been "open to correction" and willing to admit error in our reasoning, we are not false teachers?"
Can't say as I could ever imagine what your reasoning could have been like for you to think you're closer to the truth now. What possible error could have existed in it, unless you were another Fred Phelps? But you are without a doubt in error now and it is pure whimsy and fantasy that you use to support that error, not Scriptural evidence of any kind.
"Surely you're not saying those two examples are the limit of where Christians can disagree."
No. I am not. More examples are unnecessary.
"
And what is your reasoning on those two areas? "We can be mistaken on atonement and Calvinism/Arminianism because..."
Why?
What solid, consistent criteria are you relying upon?"
I didn't offer my examples in order to renew debates on those topics here. But the first example is, as I said, something of which I am still in the middle, studying and trying to learn and as I stated quite clearly, at this point I see no harm done by favoring one side over the other. Perhaps my continued study will produce such evidence, but it hasn't as yet. So sorry if that's insufficient for you.
As to the second, the criteria is Scripture itself. Christ's death on the cross as a necessary payment on our behalf is His purpose for His being sent. Elementary Christian teaching. If you want to call that whimsy, then you're further gone than I thought.
Marshall...
But the first example is, as I said, something of which I am still in the middle, studying and trying to learn and as I stated quite clearly, at this point I see no harm done by favoring one side over the other.
Okay, I think I get it. It's all about you, Marshall. Any topic which YOU are not wholly decided upon, you are okay with other people having a different opinion. Any topic which you are "certain" of, you are NOT okay with others having a different opinion. If they disagree with you on topics YOU are sure of, they are false teachers.
So it would appear we can get rid of any outside, independent thought, we just need to find out which topics Marshall is undecided upon and that is our criteria on which we can "know" false teachers.
Is that your best answer?
Marshall...
I don't see that you're willing to change your opinions at all.
Well, I have. I've given you an example of a HUGE change of opinion that I had on the gay marriage topic. So, clearly, I am capable of changing my opinion.
I have not seen you change your opinion on anything. Does that mean because I have not seen it, that you are unwilling to change your opinion? And, by your reasoning, are thus a false teacher?
Where have YOU changed your opinion on any points in any of our discussions?
At least in my case, you can know that I CAN change my mind because it's been a huge topic of discussion for us. So, you can't reasonably say that you can't see that I am not willing to change my mind. You know that I have.
Also, I'm still left wondering...
Why should I take your hunches about false teachers as reasonable?
What solid, consistent criteria are you relying upon?
Marshall...
"Surely you're not saying those two examples are the limit of where Christians can disagree."
No. I am not. More examples are unnecessary.
You are making the charge that those who disagree with "some" issues are false teachers and those who disagree with other "uncertain" issues are NOT false teachers. The difference between being a false teacher and not IS a huge deal. If you can actually create a list of issues on which we can disagree - and support it biblically - THAT would be an important support for your position.
As it is, your position still seems entirely whimsical and vague and undefined.
Marshall...
But referring to arguments you don't like as whimsy is hardly the mark of an open mind.
At this point, it should be unnecessary for me to say this, but I think I need to anyway: I refer to your arguments as "whimsy" because they strike me as "whimsical." It has nothing to do with not liking them. It has to do with their being NO REASONABLE BASIS for me to accept the argument as convincing.
Look at it this way: I have explained why I hold my position on false teachers. I've looked at all the examples of the charge in the Bible and come away with 8-9 reasonable conclusions, conclusions that even Craig seemed to agree with (I'm not sure about your opinions on my conclusions).
You, in spite of the way the term appears to be used every time in the Bible, seem to have come away with the hunch that false teachers includes those who are innocently mistaken.
ON WHAT BASIS should anyone find support for your position? That "false" must be interpreted as simply "not true" including the innocently mistaken other than simply "because Marshall says?"
I don't know I can be any more clear. It's a simple prospect. Listen closely:
A false teacher is one who teaches that which is false.
What more do you need to know? How is this in any way "whimsical" or without basis? If what is taught is true, then the teacher is not a false teacher.
"Okay, I think I get it. It's all about you, Marshall."
No. It's all about Scripture. Unlike you, I don't find it all that mysterious. MOST of what is taught is rather plain and clear to the point that a humble, high school grad with only four neurons can easily understand it. I can't help that. Why do you want to give me crap over it?
"Any topic which you are "certain" of, you are NOT okay with others having a different opinion."
I'm perfectly OK with others having different opinions from mine. Some of them are just crap, that's all. Of those things on which I'm certain, no one has provided a compelling argument to sway me from my opinion. The thing is, unlike yourself, I'm not swayed by crappy arguments full of obvious holes. Pardon me for having higher standards.
"Well, I have. I've given you an example of a HUGE change of opinion that I had on the gay marriage topic. So, clearly, I am capable of changing my opinion."
Swayed, as it happens, by a plethora of crappy arguments chock full of holes. This statement also assumes your previous position was based on solid understanding and that's never been established. You like to say it matched my position. I don't see any reason to assume that was ever true or you couldn't have been so easily swayed.
"Where have YOU changed your opinion on any points in any of our discussions?"
Ah, well, there's the rub. When have you presented compelling arguments that haven't been met with more questions? On top of that, I've only argued for those positions on which I AM certain. I say again that I'm open to other arguments and invite others to persuade me. I can't help it if no one has the ability to do so. You don't expect I just roll over for any crappy, hole-filled argument that comes down the pike, do you? My four neurons don't have room for such.
"I have not seen you change your opinion on anything. Does that mean because I have not seen it, that you are unwilling to change your opinion? And, by your reasoning, are thus a false teacher?"
First question: No. It means no one has presented an argument that compels me to change my tune. That's not a reflection on me whatsoever.
Second question: My reasoning is far more sound than what this question suggests. By asking, however, we are given another glimpse at the quality of YOUR reasoning. But let me further explain: If someone holds a false position but is open to argument, he is allowing that he may be mistaken in his beliefs. As a result, I'm not prepared to call him a false teacher, but merely mistaken. In my case, my beliefs are not false, so there's no reason for me to be open to anything, even though I maintain openness in the unlikely, but still possible event that another might show me a better understanding.
"You are making the charge that those who disagree with "some" issues are false teachers and those who disagree with other "uncertain" issues are NOT false teachers."
Not at all. I'm making the charge that those who teach what is false is are false teachers. You continue to pose "What ifs...?" to me, but nothing mitigates the truth of the premise. False teachers teach falsehoods.
"If you can actually create a list of issues on which we can disagree - and support it biblically - THAT would be an important support for your position."
Not sure I follow. What do you mean by "list of issues"? Gimme a fr'instance.
"As it is, your position still seems entirely whimsical and vague and undefined."
Can't get much more distinctive and defined as...
A false teacher is one who teaches that which is false.
"I've looked at all the examples of the charge in the Bible and come away with 8-9 reasonable conclusions, conclusions that even Craig seemed to agree with (I'm not sure about your opinions on my conclusions)."
Nothing in the Bible mitigates the truth of the above emboldened statement. In fact, that statement is all the Bible says on the subject in a nutshell. You want to point to things such a sincerity and intent, but those are worthless without truth of teaching.
If sincerity and intention were as important as YOU are trying to make it, then what would you say to one who is insincere in teaching the truth? What if he tells the truth with bad intentions? Assume an obvious lesson, such as "God exists". The lesson is truth. God DOES exist. The teaching is not false despite his level of sincerity or bad intentions. Indeed, if I were to teach the truth about homosexual behavior only because I thought it would drive out unrepentant homosexuals, I'm guilty of bad intentions but I've not taught false concepts. (It could be said that I taught falsely because of my bad intentions, but that just makes me a false Christian perhaps, not a false teacher.)
"You, in spite of the way the term appears to be used every time in the Bible, seem to have come away with the hunch that false teachers includes those who are innocently mistaken."
It's hardly a hunch. If what is taught is false, then the teacher of that falsehood is a false teacher regardless of intent. "He really seems to believe that Jesus is talking about monkeys!" "Good thing he's innocently mistaken!"
"ON WHAT BASIS should anyone find support for your position? That "false" must be interpreted as simply "not true" including the innocently mistaken other than simply "because Marshall says?""
Another of your fallback strategies. "...because Marshall says..." It's not what I say, it's what Scripture says. If you believe and teach something that conflicts with Scripture, it is FALSE and thus you are a false teacher.
Dan,
MA = Scripture. In the beginning was the MA, and the MA was with God and the MA was God.
You don't know that by now? He doesn't have to interpret or understand Scripture. He *is* the Word.
I find it fascinating, to bring Art's example from a previous comment thread up here, that he doesn't consider the Reformed-Arminian divide any big deal. People killed one another because of these differences. Reformed, Evangelical (Lutheran), Arminian - these were, indeed worth killing and dying for, because nothing more or less than the truth of God was at stake. In other words, one was the Truth, the others were False Teachers (according to Art's tautological definition), and deserved death.
So, um, maybe not so much, Art. Part of educating oneself is appreciating that these real differences, about which we tease one another these days, were once so serious that folks were run through with swords, beheaded, burned at the stake, and all manner of horrible things. Your statement that you don't see what the big deal is (or whatever it is you said) doesn't quite cut it.
Excellent point, Geoffrey. Very funny, Alan.
All that notwithstanding, let me try at least one more time...
Marshall, you think that Christians who disagree over the Calvinism/Arminianism issue(s) can disagree and neither side be a false teacher, even though presumably one side or the other is wrong (ie, they hold a "false" position and teach "false" teachings). But even though the person who disagrees with you on that topic is teaching what you think is a false teaching, you don't think they're a false teacher.
Right, so far?
However, if a fellow Christian disagrees with you on the gay marriage question, then they are a false teacher. You can know they are a false teacher because they are teaching what you consider to be a false teaching.
Right?
So, what is the difference between the two "false" teachers, if they're both teaching something you think is false?
Is it the case that you, Marshall Art, have not decided WHAT your position is on the Arminianism/Calvinism debate and since YOU have not reached a solid opinion, it's up for grabs for anyone?
If that is the case, then are you saying it's only on matters on which Marshall Art is undecided that Christians can disagree without being "false" teachers? And on all topics on which Marshall Art feels sure of his position, then anyone who disagrees is a "false" teacher?
"Very funny, Alan."
You've a warped idea of "funny", Dan. The boy Alan calling me "God" is funny to you? Fascinating.
Geoffrey,
"I find it fascinating, to bring Art's example from a previous comment thread up here, that he doesn't consider the Reformed-Arminian divide any big deal."
Didn't say that. You know, the boy Alan has harsh words for those who cannot bother to scroll up and read what was written.
"People killed one another because of these differences."
That they thought it was a big deal doesn't make it so.
"Your statement that you don't see what the big deal is (or whatever it is you said) doesn't quite cut it."
You'd do better to comment on what I actually say rather than on "whatever". Commenting on "whatever" doesn't cut it.
Dan,
"Marshall, you think that Christians who disagree over the Calvinism/Arminianism issue(s) can disagree and neither side be a false teacher, even though presumably one side or the other is wrong"
No. I think "As I've been studying this debate, I can't see either side's position being definitive on the subject that separates them. There's no harm for either to maintain his position as far as I can tell at this point in my study." Can you see the part where I say neither argument is definitive? My study of the issue is inconclusive. I have no position. One thing I CAN say is that both sides use Scripture to defend their positions. That's far more than can be said for proponents of the homosexual agenda. A Calvinist can point me to verses that I can study and consider. So can the Arminian. The homosexual enabler cannot, does not and doesn't even think it's necessary.
"But even though the person who disagrees with you on that topic is teaching what you think is a false teaching, you don't think they're a false teacher."
No. Assuming that I chose one side over the other as being the true meaning of Scripture, the person who disagrees with me is a false teacher. Now, as this is said, it is meant in the most technical sense. If I decided that the Calvinist position is what Scripture is saying, then of course to say otherwise would then be false. Am I fallible? Could I be wrong? Of course! That's a given! Even more so for some here than for others. But that's irrelevant. What's more, that doesn't mean that I ever am or should assume that I always might be. Why freakin' bother if I have to qualify every step I take with that stupid statement?
I'm wrong when I'm proven wrong and you're wrong until you can prove you're right. On those issues that I've said another is wrong or false, it's because their arguments aren't as good as mine. Should I base my opinion on YOUR arguments, especially when they're of such low quality? I know what the Bible says, but I only stand firmly on that which I know with certainty, not on points on which I still lack confidence. Even if that was 90%, of that 10% on which I am certain, the arguments of others need to be stronger than mine, for I am certain due to the fact that that 10% is devoid of ambiguity. "Thou shalt not..." for example, means you shall not. There's no ambiguity there.
"are you saying it's only on matters on which Marshall Art is undecided that Christians can disagree without being "false" teachers?"
Well this pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? If I don't know, how can I accuse anyone of teaching falsely? Wouldn't I have to know what is true first?
Have these comments still left you perplexed as to my position? As I read the rest of your last, it seems as though what I've said here should cover it all.
Marshall...
If I decided that the Calvinist position is what Scripture is saying, then of course to say otherwise would then be false. Am I fallible? Could I be wrong? Of course! That's a given! Even more so for some here than for others. But that's irrelevant. What's more, that doesn't mean that I ever am or should assume that I always might be. Why freakin' bother if I have to qualify every step I take with that stupid statement?
Christian humility? Common decency?
So, given all that you're saying, if some Christian or Christian group is "relatively certain" of their position on any "clear" topic in the Bible, then to them, they should consider all other Christians false teachers?
The anabaptists should consider the bulk of Christianity today false teachers for disagreeing with them about going to war?
The huge number of simple life Christians who believe the Bible is clear on not pursuing wealth should consider the other portion of church (such as yourself) false teachers if they disagree with them?
Should the Presbyterians and Catholics consider Baptists false teachers for dunking their converts?
Should the Baptists consider Presbys and Catholics false teachers for sprinkling?
Should those who ordain women consider the sexists false teachers for not ordaining women and vice versa?
Where would the line ever end?
Marshall responded...
"People killed one another because of these differences."
That they thought it was a big deal doesn't make it so.
THAT is perhaps the most right on, profound statement that I've heard from you, Brother Marshall. Indeed.
Christians throughout the ages have gotten up in arms (way too often, literally) over stuff that was not important in the least, in the grand scheme of things. Fortunately, WE TODAY are too enlightened to think it worthwhile to kill or divide terribly over matters like Baptism, calvinism, arminianism, and other non-vital disagreements.
No, we don't divide over such silly matters, we're all united in agreeing, for instance, that HOW we baptize isn't all that important and fellow believers can disagree on the point and it's no big deal. EVEN THOUGH it once was a big deal.
May that sort of thinking increase.
"Christian humility? Common decency?"
"Well, children. I used to think that there was only one God, but as I am a fallible human being, I have to leave open the possibility that I haven't the means to properly understand what the Bible teaches about this. So you're to believe whatever the hell you like. I'm way too humble to assume I'm right about this and an alternative position might be false."
Nah. Don't think so. Christian humility doesn't include lying. I'd be lying to admit that I might be wrong about that which I know I'm right, and it's just not decent to leave others wallowing in ambiguity when the truth is so readily available. I make my case and then they're on their own.
"So, given all that you're saying, if some Christian or Christian group is "relatively certain" of their position on any "clear" topic in the Bible, then to them, they should consider all other Christians false teachers?"
Sure, if they want. What they should or shouldn't do on the matter is up to them. Or they can be wishy-washy about what they believe no matter how clear Scripture is and pretend they can't be sure due to human infallibility.
"The anabaptists should consider...The huge number of simple life Christians...Should the Presbyterians and Catholics consider...Should the Baptists consider...
Should those who ordain women consider....Where would the line ever end?"
For them I have no idea or care. For me it ends where my understanding does. When I die and am to be judged, I will not be asked to account for what goofy anabaptists believe, or wacky simple livers, or Presbies, Catholics or Baptists do or believe. I will only be held accountable for my own actions and beliefs. I make my case and then they're on their own.
continuing...
This is where I think you guys have your biggest problem: You all like what you believe. That's natural. Who doesn't? You wanna believe that it's only arrogance and pride that would compel another to speak of your beliefs as false and you as a false teacher because of it. But even if that were so, and even if we are indeed free to believe what we want based on our "years of study and prayerful meditation", and even if we are fallible and capable of error, none of that excuses the holes in your arguments or your inability to poke holes in mine. And as we band heads over whether THAT is true, one thing remains. I don't care if you call ME a false teacher, because I'm confident in my understanding and able to defend it for as long as anyone wants to try to find holes in it. I don't care that people like Geoffrey and Alan think me deficient intellectually.
What's more, I can only judge false and true on MY understanding. It is what it is and what yours ain't. But tolerating the different and false opinions of others does not require that I pretend it's OK that those opinions are false and that I should not use the term "false teacher" when another is teaching that which isn't true. I get along with all sorts of people with whom I disagree on all sorts of issues. Even my wife and I don't agree no everything. But the same standard applies. Prove it. If you can't, you're wrong 99.9% of the time. At the very least, you need to continue studying the issue.
So I think we're done here.
Art, without knowing it (although "without knowing", where he is concerned, could fill libraries), gives the game away on the whole discussion going on here. In response to my pointing out his relative insouciance toward the Reformed/Arminian divide, compared to, say The Thirty Years War that killed a third of the European population over religious difference, he writes: "That they thought it was a big deal doesn't make it so."
See how easy that was? Four hundred years ago, various Christian groups - Catholic, Evangelical, Reformed, Revolutionary Anabaptists - were killing one another en masse, massacring whole villages, burning their religious opponents at the stake, beheading them, torturing them (including waterboarding!) - and Art says, in essence, they may well have been wrong! I'm sure that's comforting to the victims piled high, the millions of ragged refugees who wandered the scorched earth of central Europe looking for a safe place and finding none. All those murderous goings-on were just a terrible mistake.
Flash-forward, and we are having a discussion over what constitutes "false teaching". Today, it isn't the reality of the Papacy, or differences in approach to Eucharist or baptism. Art thinks all those doctrinal differences are things with which we can live, and if those silly Europeans had only understood that, they could have avoided all that misery. What they should have been focusing on, if I get the gist of his point, is sex. Specifically, all that horrible, immoral sex going on. Of course, years ago, Art told me that all sex is selfish, so there is an element of immorality even in married sex (poor Mrs. Art, I cannot help but think!).
Gay sex? Fuggedaboudit! If those silly Europeans had focused on the eternal moral principles set forth in Scripture, finally discovered and delineated by Art in he early years of the 21st century, they might have gone about killing all those immoral people. Because, see, that's where the real false teachers are. Liberals. People who think gays should be accorded full civil rights. Instead of arguing and fussing and killing one another because one country was Catholic and another Lutheran, they could have all agreed who the real enemy is.
In case Art missed it, he gave the game away because he said that what constitutes "false teaching" and "false teacher" differs from age to age. He carries on about morality, yet half a millennium ago, the big deal was whether one was a Catholic or Calvinist or Anabaptist.
He gives the game away because, in ignorance, he dismisses the reality that Dan's position, and mine, on the question of what constitutes the "false" in "false teaching" is not something that can be nailed down, once for all. This is not to suggest there is no such thing as a false teacher. Rather, it is to recognize how time-bound, contingent, relative, and perhaps even erroneous one's own understanding of these terms might be, and to have some compassion, even grace toward those with whom one differs. Because, you know what? "That they thought it was a big deal doesn't make it so."
"In case Art missed it, he gave the game away because he said that what constitutes "false teaching" and "false teacher" differs from age to age."
Gotta love dispensationalism, especially when the dispensationalist doesn't even realize he's a dispensationalist. Yet another heresy that, back in the good old days, false teachers would get burned at the stake for.
Indeed, that MA "thinks" anything is a big deal doesn't make it so. To anyone but MA. That he doesn't get that is no longer surprising.
You got check-mate, Geoffrey. Nicely done.
Thank you. I was actually gonna type, "Game, set, match to me." But I thought that might be bragging, so I decided not to.
Marshall...
But the same standard applies. Prove it. If you can't, you're wrong 99.9% of the time.
That's not a "standard," Marshall. "Convince me of your position and if you don't convince me, then you're a false teacher," is NOT a standard, other than the whimsical standard of Self.
If I can "prove" to MARSHALL??? that my position makes sense TO MARSHALL??? then I'm not a false teacher?
You ain't god, man. You ain't the Bible. You ain't the word of God. You're just some dude, with whom I sometimes disagree.
And thanks be to God's grace, that doesn't mean you aren't a Christian (because you disagree with me) or that you are a false teacher. It just means I THINK you're mistaken.
You just don't find that vague slippery ME=God, Everyone Else=False Teachers in the Bible. It's just not there.
And what an ugly twisted hateful kingdom that would be if we tried to build THAT kingdom (the kingdom of a million tiny godlings proclaiming right and wrong, in and out, like a dictator) instead of the Kingdom of God, which is a kingdom of love and grace.
I choose grace.
"Art, without knowing it (although "without knowing", where he is concerned, could fill libraries)"
To paraphrase Donald Fagen, the things that pass for knowledge in Geoffie's mind I don't understand. I doubt that twice the books and class time under your belt would equate to "knowing".
"In response to my pointing out his relative insouciance toward the Reformed/Arminian divide,"
What do you mean "relative"? Nor is my lack of concern casual. It's total. I have absolutely no concern for the manner with which the issue was dealt by those people as regards the issue's importance. It factors not a bit. It remains a debate of little importance insofar as I can see at present. That could change for me as my look at the debate goes forward, but for now, it ain't no thang. That people killed and died over it is a separate issue. What's obvious is an extremely lame attempt by someone of great "knowing" to attack me personally by bringing up this history in order to suggest something negative about me personally. Why not save time and just call me an asshole rather than pretend you have scored some point where there's no game? It amounts to the same thing.
"See how easy that was? Four hundred years ago, various Christian groups - Catholic, Evangelical, Reformed, Revolutionary Anabaptists - were killing one another en masse...and Art says, in essence, they may well have been wrong!"
First of all, I didn't say that at all. I said, the issue that divides Calvinists and Arminians is no big deal as far as I can determine at this time. I said nothing about idiots killing each other over it. Some idiot brought it up, not me.
Second of all, though I didn't say it then, I will say it now, and not in essence, but right out loud: they were absolutely wrong to kill over the issue. Or do you disagree with this?
"I'm sure that's comforting to the victims piled high, the millions of ragged refugees who wandered the scorched earth of central Europe looking for a safe place and finding none."
Perhaps not, but I'm sure your lying awake at night over it will provide that comfort, you pompous, psuedo-sanctimonious fraud.
"Art thinks all those doctrinal differences are things with which we can live, and if those silly Europeans had only understood that, they could have avoided all that misery."
Now I'm confused. Are you saying those silly Europeans were justified in killing and dying over those differences? Why would you want that?
"What they should have been focusing on, if I get the gist of his point, is sex."
Thank you. You've once again demonstrated just what an idiot you are by showing you've missed the point entirely. Like all Christians, they should have been focusing on better understanding Scripture and how to explain how they came to their understanding so as to find their way to the best understanding. I point to Dan's (and by extension yours and the boy Alan's) understanding of sexuality because it is an obvious case of where you all have defied and denied Scripture to believe as you do. Try paying attention for a change.
Moving on, Geoffrey says,
"Of course, years ago, Art told me that all sex is selfish, so there is an element of immorality even in married sex (poor Mrs. Art, I cannot help but think!)."
Sex IS selfish and yes, there very well can be immorality within sex between a man and woman married to each other if sex becomes obsessive or leaves no room for God. Your false concern for the fetching Mrs. Marshall Art is unnecessary as the awareness of this fact does not impede performance, especially considering God's importance in our lives and sex between us being in its proper place on the priority list.
"Gay sex? Fuggedaboudit!"
If only you guys were men enough and Christian enough to have this attitude. I continue to keep you in my prayers.
"If those silly Europeans had focused on the eternal moral principles set forth in Scripture, finally discovered and delineated by Art in he early years of the 21st century, they might have gone about killing all those immoral people."
What can it mean that you so easily say something so stupid? First of all, the eternal moral principles set forth in Scripture were revealed by God and delineated by Moses and understood by all of Judaism and Christendom until somewhere within the last 100 years or so when "progressives" sought permission to be deviant.
Secondly, immoral people WERE killed as Mosaic law demanded and was also practiced long after Christ's sacrifice on the cross removed man's obligation to exact such punishment in His name. Try paying attention.
"Because, see, that's where the real false teachers are. Liberals."
Wow. The most spot on comment I believe I've ever heard you make! Nah. You couldn't have meant it. You're not that bright.
"People who think gays should be accorded full civil rights."
By "gays" do you mean "homosexuals"? If so, they've had full civil rights for quite some time and I fully support that they continue to. Just so we're clear.
"In case Art missed it, he gave the game away because he said that what constitutes "false teaching" and "false teacher" differs from age to age."
I DID miss it because I can't remember saying anything remotely like that. What I remember saying is that what constitutes false teaching is teaching that which is false.
"He carries on about morality, yet half a millennium ago, the big deal was whether one was a Catholic or Calvinist or Anabaptist."
And I should worry about these debates of the past because...?
"He gives the game away because, in ignorance, he dismisses the reality that Dan's position, and mine, on the question of what constitutes the "false" in "false teaching" is not something that can be nailed down, once for all."
You say "reality", I say "spinelessness".
"This is not to suggest there is no such thing as a false teacher."
One wouldn't know it by YOUR application of the term.
"Rather, it is to recognize how time-bound, contingent, relative, and perhaps even erroneous one's own understanding of these terms might be, and to have some compassion, even grace toward those with whom one differs."
Blah, blah, blah. Despite some snark on a blog, you assume my attitude toward those who differ. How much or little grace or compassion I have or show toward those who differ has nothing to do with whether or not they're false teachers. That they may be false teachers is a mere statement of fact based on the falsehoods they teach. What I do about it or how I feel about it is another matter entirely. But that fact gets in the way of disparaging me personally and you lack the grace and compassion to admit it, or the smarts to think it would float by unnoticed.
"Because, you know what? "That they thought it was a big deal doesn't make it so.""
Yeah. The statement stands as strong and unscathed as when I first said it.
Alan continues to weigh in, not wanting Geoffrey to have all the fun being stupid:
"Indeed, that MA "thinks" anything is a big deal doesn't make it so. To anyone but MA. That he doesn't get that is no longer surprising."
The first sentence is true on the surface, and I don't blame anyone for saying so. It's the proper attitude. But what I "think", as Alan puts it, is a big deal isn't a big deal because I think so. I think so because it's a big deal.
The last sentence displays the stupidity for the assumption that I would not "get that". It's basically what I've been saying all along. Too bad the boy Alan didn't get that, though not surprising.
Here's more stupidity:
"You got check-mate, Geoffrey. Nicely done."
...because he thinks Geoffie won something.
Then Geoffie says:
"Thank you. I was actually gonna type, "Game, set, match to me." But I thought that might be bragging, so I decided not to."
It would be bragging if you won something. As I showed how off the mark you were, it would be idiotic to type that. It would be as if you fell off your tricycle and then said, "I'm an excellent driver!"
I do want to respond to Dan since he isn't as arrogant and condescending in his commentary (thus I can be my humble and gracious self) but seems sincerely mistaken on my position. But the Bulls/Mavs game is on.
Art, it's really simple. The reason the religious conflicts of the post-Reformation era matter is this: These people were infused with the idea that those who held fundamentally different doctrinal positions were false teachers. Whether they lived in religious commonwealths or principalities, or in small enclaves surrounded by a religious majority, the result of these conflicting doctrinal claims was a period of war unmatched in European history until the 20th century. The whole reason I brought it up is your claim, which you at once deny and affirm, that you don't consider the differences among these various doctrinal positions of any serious moment.
I thought the issue was false teachers. I thought your position was that false teachers were easy enough to spot. I thought talking about a time when a whole bunch of people killed one another because they thought the others were false teachers might be a pertinent example. You dismissed my example as of little consequence, their conflict of little note for you. Specifically, you stated, as I cut and pasted it, ""That they thought it was a big deal doesn't make it so."
Unless I've been reading the words in an alternate universe, that is Dan's point against you, a point you vociferously deny, to the point that by expressing it, he, Dan is showing his lack of seriousness. I would have thought all this was clear enough. It was certainly clear to Alan.
That it isn't clear to you, well, don't exactly color me surprised by your lack of understanding. Me, I thought it was a marvelous way of moving the argument forward, one you provided, and you actually managed to hoist yourself on your own petard. For me, this is now complete, to the point that you continue to respond without even realizing that you managed to completely vitiate every argument you've made against Dan (and, by extension, Alan and me) by using the exact same sentiment Dan has made, which you, in your turn, dismissed.
I guess Dan will have to wait a bit longer. I've returned after another Bulls victory and found Geoffrey has again fallen off his trike.
"Art, it's really simple."
More than your realize because you are too.
"The whole reason I brought it up is your claim, which you at once deny and affirm, that you don't consider the differences among these various doctrinal positions of any serious moment."
You're pathetic. I said...
"As I've been studying this debate..." (The process is ongoing, incomplete, inconclusive) "...I can't see either side's position being definitive on the subject that separates them. There's no harm for either to maintain his position as far as I can tell at this point in my study." To be clear (and please, actually read, ponder and study the following), should I at some point determine one side or other is indeed beyond contradiction based on all arguments available to me, I would have no problem regarding the opposing position as a false teaching.
But even that doesn't mean the other position is damning or the one who holds it damned. I never expressed the position that all falsehoods are equal. Imagine a biblical character being described as tall and someone claims he was short. The teaching is false. He technically is a false teacher as far as the description of this specific character goes. I could point out the exact verse that presents the description and you, Al or Dan can create a convoluted case in opposition as you've done with homosexuality. In this case, it's a small matter and the false teaching won't in any way put a soul in danger. Your position on homosexuality is one that very well will. So not all false teachings are equal. Not all false teachings are worthy of concern. That doesn't make them any less false.
That anyone would go so far as to kill one who holds an opposing point of view does not reflect on the point of view. It reflects on the jerk who kills. That the differences between Calvin and Arminian exist at all does not mean that it is a big deal just because some medieval bozos are overzealous in their beliefs. As it stands, I haven't even heard a reputable proponent of either position claim that the matter is essential for understanding how we respond to God, as the important thing is that we do and how we do it. So whatever point you think you're making (perhaps I was right about you not even understanding your own point) is worthless and irrelevant to this conversation or my position within it.
"I thought your position was that false teachers were easy enough to spot."
Didn't say that exactly, but it seems to have been projected upon me by those wishing to disparage me personally. If you actually pay attention objectively, think before you put your paw in your mouth, you wouldn't make such stupid statements. BUT, there are many things in the Bible which I know without a doubt are true and it is only those things about which I would defend against another who speaks in conflict with these things. An obvious example is that Jesus is our Savior. Do you quibble over this fact? Do you leave room for the possibility that you may be wrong? What the hell, it would be gracious and compassionate to do so according to you. The problem is that you don't have the spine to defend other points as being so true and worse, prefer that other things aren't.
And once again, those things I insist are true I can defend and to the extent that I have, no one has presented compelling arguments to change my mind, after which arrogant jerks like yourself and the boy Alan tell yourselves the problem is my intellect. Fine. Even that changes nothing.
"You dismissed my example as of little consequence, their conflict of little note for you."
Not as regards my position. As I said that history has no impact on it. What I said remains. "That they thought it was a big deal doesn't make it so."
"Unless I've been reading the words in an alternate universe, that is Dan's point against you, a point you vociferously deny, to the point that by expressing it, he, Dan is showing his lack of seriousness. I would have thought all this was clear enough. It was certainly clear to Alan."
Don't remember where this came from, can't find it in this thread. Not up for trying to track it down. Since it's without context, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Maybe if you included what you think Dan's point was...
"That it isn't clear to you, well, don't exactly color me surprised by your lack of understanding."
Of course.
"Me, I thought it was a marvelous way of moving the argument forward, one you provided..."
And you were wrong because it was irrelevant. YOU provided irrelevant history that had no bearing on my point. I provided only the point, that you can't seem to grasp. Another matter beyond your grasp is the consistency of my arguments that have only "vitiated" Dan's, and by extension, yours and the boy's, by explaining again and again the distinction between what I believe and what you guys want it to mean. You all have tried to over-complicate the idea of "false" and what one who teaches what is false should be called. As you say, it's really simple. But then, so are you.
Dan,
"That's not a "standard," Marshall. "Convince me of your position and if you don't convince me, then you're a false teacher," is NOT a standard, other than the whimsical standard of Self."
By what standard do you proceed? Oh yeah, that list of misapplied and misunderstood Biblical "definitions" of false teacher. Funny thing is, on this you don't seem to allow that you might be wrong. On this you are absolutely certain that I'm wrong regarding what constitutes a false teacher. You couldn't POSSIBLY be wrong, and why? Because YOU insist it's what the Bible says. So you regard my position as false, and of course should I profess my position as legitimate, I'd be a false teacher based on what you absolutely know to be true. Of course you'd be wrong.
"If I can "prove" to MARSHALL??? that my position makes sense TO MARSHALL??? then I'm not a false teacher?"
No. If you can prove your position without leaving unfilled holes through which I can drive a truck and leave me at a loss, then I'd have to re-assess my position and reconsider what up until this point I knew to be true. If after wrestling with the new data I could not find a way around it, that the sheer logic of the argument overwhelms me, how could I help but feel as if it was I who was false? And why would I want to cling to that former position? Only if my agenda was more important to me than God. I have no such agenda so I can indeed be persuaded.
"You ain't god, man. You ain't the Bible. You ain't the word of God."
Thank you ever so much for once again reminding me of that which I never claimed. This does not help your position when you again stoop to this nonsense.
"And thanks be to God's grace, that doesn't mean you aren't a Christian (because you disagree with me) or that you are a false teacher."
Fortunately, being a false teacher doesn't necessarily mean one is not a Christian. But one can be false about enough things, or about specific essential things, that it's indeed a concern.
"You just don't find that vague slippery ME=God, Everyone Else=False Teachers in the Bible. It's just not there."
I'm so relieved that I never once suggested such a thing. That stooping ain't so great on the knees, dude.
"
And what an ugly twisted hateful kingdom that would be if we tried to build THAT kingdom (the kingdom of a million tiny godlings proclaiming right and wrong, in and out, like a dictator) instead of the Kingdom of God, which is a kingdom of love and grace."
Unfortunately, there is indeed tons of diverse notions about what is or isn't true (especially considering how few actually study the Bible). Why you and your homies like to insist that I'm moving toward some dictatorship is beyond me, unless you just enjoy being one yourselves as you continually vilify with such not so veiled statements. That ain't grace, pal.
Marshall...
By what standard do you proceed? Oh yeah, that list of misapplied and misunderstood Biblical "definitions" of false teacher.
Yes, I strive to use the Bible's direct teachings as a measuring tool. You'd think this would be acceptable to other Christians.
Marshall...
Funny thing is, on this you don't seem to allow that you might be wrong. On this you are absolutely certain that I'm wrong regarding what constitutes a false teacher.
How many times must I affirm that I am a fallible human capable of being mistaken/wrong for that to sink in?
The difference is, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE MADE AS STRONG A CASE as I have. I find your support lacking and illogical, BASED UPON WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS.
The early church had disagreements. Plenty of them. There is no indication that in each of those disagreements, the "Others" were always or frequently characterized as false teachers. Indeed, looking at the given examples, there appear to be some consistent themes found. These are the ones I've pointed out.
Could I be mistaken? Sure. But I've seen NO EVIDENCE from you to make me think so. Just as you repeatedly claim is the case from us on the gay marriage issue.
Lacking any serious evidence from you, I shall continue to hold on to my position.
Does that make you a false teacher?
NO, NOT BY BIBLICAL STANDARDS, but yes, by Marshall's standards.
I don't buy into your notion that all (or "some vague and undetermined and apparently random") differences of opinion = false teachers. There is also the possibility of "just mistaken." Or perhaps, "just arrogantly mistaken," but even that does not rise to the biblical examples of false teachers.
That you are "studying" the distinctions between the Reformed and Arminian doctrinal positions, absent a consideration of the history of animosity, including armed conflict, says a whole lot. I read what you wrote, Art; the point, it seems to me, is that you consider this some intellectual distinction that can be weighed carefully on the evidence. There are still Reformed theologians who consider any drift heretical. Ditto Catholics.
These distinctions are not on matters of slight importance. They center, in particular, on how we each understand the work of Christ, the place of grace, the relative weights of free will in the face of irresistible grace, and so on. They are incommensurable (largely speaking), and both, obviously, are hardly so complete as to exist outside any criticism whatsoever. All the same, each sees the other as . . . wait for it . . . a false teaching.
Again, you don't seem to get that. For the life of me, I can't understand how that is possible. For the life of me, I can't understand how it is in any way possible you don't realize that, by ignoring the historical reality in favor of your judgment as to whether on, the other, or some third possible option perhaps might well be a false teaching, you are doing the exact same thing Dan is doing in regard to your approach to weighing certain moral precepts - reserving judgment. In the course of history, more blood has been shed over minute distinctions in doctrine than whether or not individuals adhered to some arbitrary set of moral guidelines.
That is false teaching.
All of this is my point. It has, apparently, gone so far over your head It continues to do so. I'll not repeat myself, because it seems to be futile.
"I'll not repeat myself, because it seems to be futile."
Promises, promises.
"That you are "studying" the distinctions between the Reformed and Arminian doctrinal positions, absent a consideration of the history of animosity, including armed conflict, says a whole lot."
Yes it does indeed. It says that I am capable of easily focusing on the point (the distinction between the two positions) without being distracted by irrelevancies, such as the over-the-top reactions of some medieval shithead who toward another just like him who takes an opposing position. When you can show me how it factors into my aim toward determining which doctrinal position best represents the teaching of Scripture, I'd consider it damned close to miraculous. So please, how does their over-zealous reactions to each other lead me to knowing which point of view is correct?
"I read what you wrote, Art; the point, it seems to me, is that you consider this some intellectual distinction that can be weighed carefully on the evidence."
Real close, Geoffie. I'm proud of you. The point is that I HOPE that I can determine which is closer to the truth, if not THE truth altogether.
"There are still Reformed theologians who consider any drift heretical. Ditto Catholics."
Good for them. I may someday count myself among them should my study lead me to it.
"These distinctions are not on matters of slight importance."
Yet they're so small that they can't be measured? How can it be that they're a big deal, then? And by that (had you untwisted your panties enough to think of asking) I mean so big a deal that the wrong point of view could impact one's relationship with Christ or one's salvation? I maintain that at this point in my study, I can't see that it would so affect either, but simply improve one's understanding of how grace and free will and such work.
"All the same, each sees the other as . . . wait for it . . . a false teaching."
And should a definitive understanding be discovered that...wait for it... would be true of any alternative understanding.
"Again, you don't seem to get that."
Obviously, that's not true.
Regarding you italicized section, suffice to say that Dan, and by extension you and what's his name, reserve judgment enough on any topic where it is convenient to do so. I reserve judgment on those things for which I haven't enough info or insight to render a solid conclusion. You don't like that there are those issues where I've reached a solid conclusion, because you don't like the conclusions, which don't fit your agenda.
"In the course of history, more blood has been shed over minute distinctions in doctrine than whether or not individuals adhered to some arbitrary set of moral guidelines."
First of all, you couldn't begin to prove that statement.
Secondly, the moral guidelines of which I speak are far from "arbitrary", but are in fact, quite distinctly revealed for our edification by God Himself in Scripture. You should read it sometime.
Dan,
"Yes, I strive to use the Bible's direct teachings as a measuring tool."
It's the quality of that striving that is so suspect, for the unacceptable fruit it produces.
"How many times must I affirm that I am a fallible human capable of being mistaken/wrong for that to sink in?"
Oh, it's sunk in, all right. You use it to allow yourself to carry on supporting positions that are clearly in conflict with Scripture.
"The difference is, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE MADE AS STRONG A CASE as I have. I find your support lacking and illogical, BASED UPON WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS."
Now if only you could show the flaws in my positions. THAT would be something. In the meantime, you might try defending the many flaws so often found in yours.
"The early church had disagreements. Plenty of them. There is no indication that in each of those disagreements, the "Others" were always or frequently characterized as false teachers."
That's just goofy. To disagree is at least a tacit implication that the other position is false. And should any dispute find resolution, alternatives to that resolution would be and would be recognized as false.
"Could I be mistaken? Sure. But I've seen NO EVIDENCE from you to make me think so. Just as you repeatedly claim is the case from us on the gay marriage issue."
I can only respond this way: "Now if only you could show the flaws in my positions. THAT would be something. In the meantime, you might try defending the many flaws so often found in yours." I give you plenty of evidence and on the issue of homosexuality, you have yet to overcome "Thou shalt not..." in with a bullet-proof argument. Indeed, bullets are unnecessary your arguments are so weak.
"Lacking any serious evidence from you, I shall continue to hold on to my position."
You ignore evidence. You dismiss it without negating evidence of your own. You diminish the importance of evidence offered and inflate the convoluted arguments you put forth as a serious effort. You hold your position IN SPITE of evidence, not because it is lacking in either quantity or quality.
"I don't buy into your notion that all (or "some vague and undetermined and apparently random") differences of opinion = false teachers. There is also the possibility of "just mistaken." Or perhaps, "just arrogantly mistaken," but even that does not rise to the biblical examples of false teachers."
Vague, undetermined and/or random do not play a roll in the differences over which I would ever use the term. There's only one question that matters: is what is being taught or promoted true or false? It can only be one or the other even if we can't see it. The whole world could view the same belief as true and God could say it is false, so it would be. Until we know, it is true and that's because it is based on all we can determine minus that which God has not yet revealed. But where two or more differ one position is true (or closer to the truth) and all else is not, regardless of sincerity or intent or whether or not knowing or not knowing the truth has any impact on anything.
My suspicion is this: You guys don't really care about what the true definition of a false teacher is. You are concerned about being regarded as a false teacher because what you believe is more important to you than truth, or the truth requires more than you're willing to give. You insist that you admit fallibility but only to ward off the questions about your position that you refuse to reconcile or are incapable of reconciling. No doubt you'll dismiss my suspicion as well. So be it. It changes nothing.
Art, how is it not possible for you to see how clearly - clearly - you contradict yourself? The whole matter you and I have been discussing hinges on your determination of the issues involved. Nothing wrong with that, except that when Dan says that is what you are doing in regard to matters of morality and false teaching, you demure and insist your view is eternal, rooted in Scripture, and unassailable.
How is this unclear to you? How? How? How?
Dan said:
Yes, I strive to use the Bible's direct teachings as a measuring tool.
Marshall replied:
It's the quality of that striving that is so suspect, for the unacceptable fruit it produces.
Dan said:
The difference is, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE MADE AS STRONG A CASE as I have. I find your support lacking and illogical, BASED UPON WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS.
Marshall replied:
Now if only you could show the flaws in my positions. THAT would be something. In the meantime, you might try defending the many flaws so often found in yours.
Okay, Marshall. Let's explore this he says/he says thing we got happening here, and let's use this particular topic (false teacher) as a test case, fair enough?
I posted and reviewed most of the significant passages in the Bible that deal with false teachers. I perhaps missed some, but most of the ones I skipped were instances where it just mentions the term, "false teacher (prophet, apostle)" without giving any hints as to what was being spoken of.
Agreed so far?
Okay, then, in looking at each of these instances, I found some commonalities and others seemed to agree with them. Those commonalities were the nine points I listed in my conclusion.
We can recognize false prophets (listed briefly again)...
1. By their actions
2. by their being deliberate in their false doctrine
3. By denying Jesus was sent of God, is the Son of God, divine.
4. By teachings that deny Jesus' teachings.
5. By teachings that deny Jesus' literal humanity.
6. By the weight of impact of their false teaching
7. They "quarrel about words"
8. By being intimately aware of the situation/people under consideration.
9. By being an actual teacher in some venue, as opposed to some guy just espousing opinions
These seem reasonable conclusions to me (and to, I think, most of the others who commented on the topic). It would appear that you have a problem with #2. Do you have any problems with any of these others or can we agree that these are commonalities found in BIBLICAL examples of false teachers?
Looking at number 2, then: We can recognize false prophets because of the deliberate nature of their false teachings. Paul says that false teachers are those who are doing what they're doing for reasons of GREED rather than sincerely teaching what they believe to be Godly teachings.
You don't appear to deny that.
Paul points to people who are "depraved" and "greedy" - deliberately so.
You don't appear to deny that.
Peter points out that they, in their greed, are "fabricating stories" - they're deliberately making stuff up. Paul echoes this in the Titus passage, referencing "liars." Deliberate actions of deceit, for the purpose of profit.
None of this appears to be a problem with you. You seem to concede that at least some of these passages are referencing deliberate, greedy, manipulative, lying schemers trying to deceive, rather than the merely mistaken. Am I right?
Your problem with my conclusion is that you think that we need not LIMIT ourselves to the deliberately deceptive, that we can include the merely mistaken as false teachers, as well.
Your ENTIRE reasoning (correct me if I'm wrong, that's how it seems to me) is that the term "false teacher" TO YOU implies ANY falsehood OR MISTAKE. Purposeful or not. Am I right?
Your reasoning is that the definition of false includes "not true" and "based on mistaken ideas," therefore, false teachers is someone who teaches ANYTHING not true, even if it's just a mistake. Again, am I right so far?
Finally:
As a result, you would call EVEN YOURSELF a false teacher if it turned out that you were mistaken about gay marriage, about trying to accumulate wealth, about just war, about peacemaking, about Calvinism vs Arminianism, etc?
IF Marshall has honestly tried to understand something, understood it wrong and taught that wrong teaching in mistake, you think THAT is what the Bible is speaking of when it says "false teacher," am I understanding you aright?
Wow, Dan. How much time do you figure you could have saved if you started and ended your recent comments with the very last question, or at least a part of it?
"...you think THAT is what the Bible is speaking of when it says "false teacher," am I understanding you aright?"
I haven't considered at all what the Bible says about false teachers in determining what a false teacher is. I think I've been pretty freakin' clear, concise and to the point without any ambiguity, vagueness or confusion: A false teacher is one who teaches that which is false. As you insist that no one can be absolutely certain about anything in Scripture, I can only go by MY best judgment as to what is true or real in Scripture when comparing the opinions and teachings of other people. When arguing against things I KNOW to be true, such as Jesus is God, for an easy example, all alternative opinions are false and to express them is to teach them, whether the person expressing them consciously intends to be a teacher or not. That person, then, MUST PROVE to me that my understanding is wrong based on Scripture itself (perhaps some ancient Aramaic word is PROVEN to be routinely mis-translated, for example).
Let's go to the list:
#2--Your doctrine regarding an issue or three is false and you deliberately support it and express it as truth. I know you don't mean point #2 in this manner (of course you mean it as deliberately furthering that which you know is a lie), but as you have it worded, it fits perfectly either way. Hey! Perhaps your understanding of point #2 is false!
#4--This is in my opinion the most important determining point. And as I consider Jesus to be God, as Scripture teaches, I cannot in good faith deny the OT lessons because God the Son didn't address an issue directly in the NT, like you guys do.
#6--I doubt you acknowledge that there IS any impact over which you should concern yourself, much less you can measure it.
These three points are such that the others are relatively insignificant. These three can stand alone and apart from the rest. So on the whole and at its most basic level...
"Your ENTIRE reasoning (correct me if I'm wrong, that's how it seems to me) is that the term "false teacher" TO YOU implies ANY falsehood OR MISTAKE. Purposeful or not. Am I right?"
...is about as spot on as I could hope to hear you say. Kudos to you.
Geoff,
I didn't really think you were promising not to respond. It was as a wish. Sadly, this latest is the least comprehensible and I don't really feel like once again re-reading every comment to piece together the references you so sloppily included. Suffice to say that I don't and haven't contradicted myself and you haven't shown how I have. Little you've said thus far is as clear as that.
Marshall, you agree with my summation of your conclusion then:
Your ENTIRE reasoning (correct me if I'm wrong, that's how it seems to me) is that the term "false teacher" TO YOU implies ANY falsehood OR MISTAKE. Purposeful or not.
Now, returning to your assertion/request:
In the meantime, you might try defending the many flaws so often found in yours.
So, ON THE TOPIC OF FALSE TEACHERS, your position is based entirely upon how the term "false teacher" TO YOU implies ANY falsehood, intentional or even honest mistakes. Even though the definition of "false" includes both notions. You are choosing the one interpretation - intentionally false - just as a personal whim, not because the text supports such a conclusion.
On the other hand, I have looked at the passages and tried to demonstrate how it seems to me a rational reading of the passages shows that they are not speaking of any and all mistakes, but deliberately deceptive/false teachings, often for reasons of greed or about some specific teaching (gnosticism).
Now, you don't have to agree with me, of course. But getting to your "why don't you defend the many flaws" request, I have nothing to defend. I've demonstrated what the Bible passages seem to be indicating. You don't appear to disagree with my reasoning. Instead, your entire disagreement is based on a personal hunch that YOU understand the one true and right definition of "false" that is to be applied.
How does that make MY biblical reasoning wrong or your position right? How is MY argument weak? Why is yours strong?
In the topic at hand, which of us has offered the most biblical foundation for our argument and which has resorted to "says me?"
You may not agree with my conclusion, but you have not done anything to point to "many flaws" in my argument. Have you?
Isn't your argument, as you said: "I haven't considered at all what the Bible says about false teachers in determining what a false teacher is."
How does that make your biblical argument stronger, if you have not EVEN considered what the Bible says AT ALL????
My email, for any needing to contact me, is paynehollow at yahoo.
It's obvious, Art, that your refusal to see how clearly you have undermined your own argument is unassailable. Ah, well.
As I am currently suffering from an uncharacteristically severe cold, I cannot come up with a response to Geoff that would not be considered a personal attack, so I hereby refuse to try. He can believe whatever goofiness suits his fancy.
Dan,
I believe I commented in a manner that lead you in a direction not intended. When I said:
"In the meantime, you might try defending the many flaws so often found in yours."
it was in regards to any of a variety of discussions over the years. Not this one.
"Isn't your argument, as you said: "I haven't considered at all what the Bible says about false teachers in determining what a false teacher is."
How does that make your biblical argument stronger, if you have not EVEN considered what the Bible says AT ALL????"
It doesn't impact the strength of any biblical argument I make one way or the other. It certainly doesn't impact this one. If you're imparting that which is false, there can be only one appropriate name for it. It's a technical label upon which you are putting a specific negative meaning not necessarily intended when I use it. If I thought you were purposely putting forth that which you knew to be false for whatever reason, I would indeed expand on the use of the term to describe just what kind of false teacher you'd be. But an unintentional mistake does not mitigate the fact that one is teaching falsely, which makes one a false teacher.
Some may have accused you of being the former. I may have too at some point. But the fact of the matter is there is no way I can know with certainty about such things without you admitting to it. However, with the continued use of weak arguments in support of your positions, one is tempted to suspect the worst as one tries to figure out how anyone can honestly submit those arguments with a straight face and fingers not secretly crossed behind the back. But I resist those temptations and simply press on toward trying to pry out better arguments that close those aforementioned gaping holes.
Marshall...
I believe I commented in a manner that lead you in a direction not intended. When I said:
"In the meantime, you might try defending the many flaws so often found in yours."
it was in regards to any of a variety of discussions over the years. Not this one.
Yes, perhaps I did not understand you. In THIS series of posts, I was talking about THIS particular topic.
So, are you saying that on THIS topic, you don't find "many flaws" in my argument, as the comment suggests?
Marshall...
If you're imparting that which is false, there can be only one appropriate name for it. It's a technical label upon which you are putting a specific negative meaning not necessarily intended when I use it.
Marshall, IF you are speaking of "false teacher" NOT in the Biblical sense, but in the sense of ONE definition of "false" (not true), THEN, in that ONE sense and ONE definition (of several possible definitions, none of which are "wrong") perhaps what you're saying is technically correct.
BUT, THIS series of posts has NOT been about that one technical sense. THIS series of posts has been specifically about the BIBLICAL use of the term which HAS A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE NEGATIVE MEANING.
"False teacher" does not have any neutral or positive meanings when the term is used in the Bible.
Are you saying now that all of your conversation on this topic has not been about the BIBLICAL use of the word, but your own exclusive specific meaning? If so, you're welcome to that one specific meaning.
In the meantime, though, do you have anything to say about THIS topic as spoken of here?
This topic was provoked by charges of false teacher leveled against, if not you specifically, then others who share many of your beliefs. It is a defense against the charge using what you think Scripture says in support. But, I don't know that you can make that charge, that the accusers had the "Biblical definition" (again, I don't see it as a specific definition) in mind, either.
I don't believe "false teacher" in ANY sense carries a neutral or positive connotation. "False" or "wrong teaching" is not neutral and certainly not positive.
In the meantime, I do not believe that any of the verses you've offered denote a specific biblical definition of the term, but rather, a general list of ways a false teacher might be identified. That is, not an exclusive list that would relieve you of any guilt for false teachings it is determined that you may spread. If you have such a verse, I may have missed it and would be willing to review it again.
Marshall...
This topic was provoked by charges of false teacher leveled against, if not you specifically, then others who share many of your beliefs. It is a defense against the charge using what you think Scripture says in support.
This topic is a look at what the BIBLE has to say about false teachers and how I think THE BIBLE uses the term differently than these people do.
In THE BIBLE, false teachers are identifiable by their greed, by their rejection of Jesus' ways, by their lifestyles lacking in love and grace.
In the "cry wolf" crowd, false teachers are identifiable because they represent some vague disagreement on some certain but vague topics.
In short, I think the "cry wolf" crowd is using the term incorrectly and I looked at how the Bible uses it differently than them to demonstrate my point. A point which I think the evidence supports. A point which their OWN lack of defense for the way THEY use it supports.
On THAT topic, do you have anything to say?
I do not believe that any of the verses you've offered denote a specific biblical definition of the term, but rather, a general list of ways a false teacher might be identified.
Okay, I can live with that. Not a specific definition, but a way that false teachers can be recognized. Using the Biblical measures for identifying/recognizing false teachers, then, we can see that these "wolf cryers" are NOT using it in that sense, but in some extrabiblical and, I contend, UNbiblical sense.
IF a false teacher is recognizable by their greed, rejection of Jesus' teachings and lack of Christian virtue, AND they "wolf cryers" are thus name-calling those who are NOT greedy, who DON'T reject Jesus' teachings and who DO display the fruit of the Spirit, then the "wolf cryers" are rejecting the biblical models in favor of their own, wrongheaded and farcical whims.
By their FRUIT you will recognize them, Jesus tells us. Well, by the fruit of my fellow Christians, you DO recognize us, AS Christians. They are calling "unholy" that which is of the Body of Christ.
Not a good place to be, seems to me.
But you assume that what you believe about certain unBiblical positions would not count as "bad fruit". You seem to think that doing the holy-roller kumbaya thing is the extent what anyone needs to know about "good fruit". To continually support unBiblical positions is decidedly BAD fruit and indeed, I recognize it as such. Thus, what am I to make of it? You support unbiblical positions but I'm to ignore that because you do good works at the same time? Is not your support for unbiblical positions not a "work" as well? Seems I'm falling right in line with your definitions after all.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Supporting fidelity, love, commitment, family and community does not count as "bad fruit," not anywhere in the BIBLE that I see.
Again, you are free to make up terms and definitions to fit your agenda if you want, Marshall, but I'm speaking of "fruit" as spoken of in THE BIBLE.
Marshall...
That is, not an exclusive list that would relieve you of any guilt for false teachings it is determined that you may spread. If you have such a verse, I may have missed it and would be willing to review it again.
On the other hand, you have NOT A SINGLE verse to support your OWN definition of "false teacher." So, with no BIBLICAL or LOGICAL reason to suppose YOUR DEFINITION of "false," AND with some biblical and logical reason to support MY hunch, for what reason would anyone choose YOUR hunch as logical or biblical?
I'm looking for ANY REASON AT ALL to support your hunch, Marshall.
"My hunch is that "false" must mean deliberately false because..."
What? Because Marshall thinks so? Because it fits Marshall's agenda?
I have to say that I just don't find that logically or biblically compelling.
In short, Marshall, your hunch on this seems NOT logical, NOT biblical, but just WHIMSICAL and flighty.
By YOUR own testimony, there are multiple definitions of "false," including False in the sense that I believe the Bible is using it with "false teacher."
By YOUR own testimony, Marshall, there is nothing biblical in your use of your definition.
It's all entirely whimsical.
As if you're saying, "Yes, I know my definition is not based on anything the Bible says, and my definition is but one of many possible ways of understanding the word, and I've offered no logical reasons for my support of my definition, NONETHELESS, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I SAY SO."
Marshall's hunches are not enough for most people to change their opinions based on at least a little more substance than whimsy.
There you go with that "whimsy" nonsense again. But go ahead with this test: Without any prompting, without any explanation for why you might be asking, go up to ten people and ask them what does "false" mean and then report back. I'm wagering that the immediate response, if you're honest enough to allow one, is something along the lines of "that which is not true". Will they all be accused of being whimsical in their responses? Or are they simply using the most common understanding of the word? "False" is most commonly regarded as the opposite of "true".
"As if you're saying, "Yes, I know my definition is not based on anything the Bible says, and my definition is but one of many possible ways of understanding the word, and I've offered no logical reasons for my support of my definition, NONETHELESS, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I SAY SO.""
I'll deal with what the Bible says a bit later, but the "my definition is but one of many possible ways of understanding the word" fails to account for the one thing the unites all those ways: lack of truth. What's more, my definition is absolutely and logically supported by virtue of what the freakin' words mean.
""My hunch is that "false" must mean deliberately false because..." "
There's no "hunch" at all here. Plus, you know damned well that I didn't say it must mean "deliberately" false. I simply, and I mean as simply as I could possibly state it, that "false" means "that which isn't true". A false teacher teaches that which isn't true. Intent to deceive has nothing to do with, aside from making the crime worse. The mere fact that the info is false makes the deliverer of that info a false teacher. Why does this simple concept give you such fits?
"On the other hand, you have NOT A SINGLE verse to support your OWN definition of "false teacher." So, with no BIBLICAL or LOGICAL reason to suppose YOUR DEFINITION of "false," AND with some biblical and logical reason to support MY hunch, for what reason would anyone choose YOUR hunch as logical or biblical?"
I don't know. An obsessive desire for truth perhaps? As to your "hunch", it seems to me that you falsely believe what you claim is a biblical definition gives you cover to carry on with your false beliefs. But let's look again at your criteria...
Marshall...
There you go with that "whimsy" nonsense again.
Until such time as you have, you know, some REASON for holding your particular hunch, then it is just whimsical so far as I can see. I'm looking for A REASON, some JUSTIFICATION for your hunch. If your entire hunch is, "cause that's how it seems to me..." that is, by definition, whimsical.
Whimsical: resulting from or characterized by whim or caprice;
Caprice: a sudden, impulsive, and seemingly unmotivated notion or action
Thus, if you would like your hunch to not come off as whimsical, you might consider supporting it with something other than a caprice.
"1. By their actions"
Your actions include supporting blatantly unBiblical positions on human sexuality.
"2. by their being deliberate in their false doctrine"
Without a doubt you ARE being deliberate in your clinging to false doctrines regarding human sexuality.
"4. By teachings that deny Jesus' teachings."
As I believe that Jesus is God (and Craig has also pointed this out), you deny His teachings on human sexuality as presented in OT Scripture.
"6. By the weight of impact of their false teaching "
Putting aside the spiritual impact upon those whose actions might be in some way based on your words, the negative impact on the emotional, psychological and of course physical health of those who might be guided by your positions is indicated in CDC reports.
"7. They "quarrel about words""
Well, what are you doing now? Rather than defend you positions against obvious questions your positions provoke, you have now spent a few posts quarreling over the meaning of the words "false teacher".
So I count five out of the nine points you've listed where you qualify for the term based on a traditional (and clearly more rational) understanding of Scripture on the subject of human sexuality alone.
"Supporting fidelity, love, commitment, family and community does not count as "bad fruit," not anywhere in the BIBLE that I see"
But you support it in the context of sexual immorality. You have NO Biblical support to believe as you do regarding those qualities as justification for sexually immoral practices. The Spirit would not so contradict Itself. That is NOT the fruit as spoken of in the Bible.
Setting aside the ad hom attacks for what they are (bad reasoning and false interpretations - false, not true), I STILL am asking you: DO YOU HAVE ANY NON-WHIMSICAL REASONS why I should set aside what I think is my clear and logical biblical understanding of this point for your hunches?
Or is your ENTIRE hunch built on the "cause I think so" defense as it has been thus far presented?
If you do not defend your position with, you know, actual support, I shall have to consider it purely whimsical and treat as the lightweight hunch-based-on-nothing that it appears to be.
I think you'll have to re-educate me on your use of the term "whimsical". For if that isn't an ad hom itself, then I don't understand what you mean. There's nothing "whimsical" in my explanations or positions. There is "whimsy" in determining when you rely on Scripture and when you don't to support what you want to believe. I'm being about as objective as one can possibly be. I notice you have not gone so far as to state that you've provided a comprehensive Biblical definition for the phrase "false teacher" and have not denied my statement that your verse excerpts only provide some ways to identify one. Did I miss something?
Thus, it is whimsical to dismiss my definition based on a less than comprehensive list or definition. You are treating the list as absolute when I don't recall the text putting those points forth as such. (Maybe I'm wrong on this--if you have that verse that states as much, please cite it for me so I can be corrected.)
In addition, there's nothing in my last that qualifies as "ad hominem".
"1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made "
Any attack you might feel against your character cannot be helped as I make my point regarding your beliefs and how they fit into your chosen description of false teacher. I can't think of another way of making my point without it allowing you room to dance away from the charge. Whether or not we agree on the lack of Biblical support for your beliefs is irrelevant. I'm only stating that I find some of your beliefs as such and until it can be made clear why I am wrong, then "false teacher" is appropriate based on both MY understanding of the term and your purposefully narrowed criteria.
Marshall...
I think you'll have to re-educate me on your use of the term "whimsical". For if that isn't an ad hom itself, then I don't understand what you mean.
I've already done that. I've describe the conditions as to why your position seems whimsical. Describing your position aright is not an ad hom attack. It's not an attack against you, it's the pointing out of why your position is based upon fluff and gas.
And I've already educated you as to why, but I'll repeat (last time, though):
Until such time as you have, you know, some REASON for holding your particular hunch, then it is just whimsical so far as I can see. I'm looking for A REASON, some JUSTIFICATION for your hunch. If your entire hunch is, "cause that's how it seems to me..." that is, by definition, whimsical.
Whimsical: resulting from or characterized by whim or caprice;
Caprice: a sudden, impulsive, and seemingly unmotivated notion or action
Thus, if you would like your hunch to not come off as whimsical, you might consider supporting it with something other than a caprice.
In short, being able to say, "MY definition of false teacher is supported by..." and offering something other than "MY OWN SENSE THAT THIS IS WHAT THE WORD MEANS," which is what you've offered thus far. Your hunch about why "false" in this case HAS to be the way you understand it and not any of the other definitions is based on nothing but "cause I say so."
OFFER SOME ACTUAL REASON and you can move away from whimsy and fluff. You almost tried to do this when you offered a "because most people would agree with me" defense, but you offered no support for that other than your whimsical hunch, either, and beyond that, the "greater numbers" defense is also a fallacy.
"the "greater numbers" defense is also a fallacy."
Yet you've used it yourself on more than one occasion. But, setting that fact of life aside for a moment, when I say "most people" would agree with my definition of what constitutes a "false teacher" (one who teaches that which is false), without any prompting from either side I would wager "most" would come so close to "everybody" that the distinction would be undetectable.
But even setting THAT aside, my definition was indeed supported by the dictionary definition of the words together with common usage of the aforementioned "most". And as such, is much more specific than the list you've presented from Scripture, a list, I might add, that I have shown applies in my favor in at least five areas.
Thank you for clarifying the word "whimsical" for me. I now am more certain I am innocent of whimsy in my use and understanding of the term "false teacher" than you are in applying the term "whimsical" toward me. That is, your use of the term "whimsical" is indeed whimsical.
But I understand fully your rationale for continued use of the term. It's far easier to disparage an opponent than to defend his point. Kinda justifies my earliest comments from the first "False false teacher teachings" thread.
Marshall...
my definition was indeed supported by the dictionary definition of the words together with common usage of the aforementioned "most". And as such, is much more specific than the list you've presented from Scripture, a list, I might add, that I have shown applies in my favor in at least five areas.
Marshall, you are free to believe whatsoever you would like, but it still comes down to you saying, "My definition/understanding makes most sense because I think it makes most sense, never mind that it's based only on my unsupported hunch and not ONE SINGLE thing else, my understanding makes the most sense purely because I say it makes most sense..."
And you know, good for you. It's good to have self esteem and believe in yourself. Just don't expect that "argument" to hold water with anyone besides your mother.
Marshall...
any prompting from either side I would wager "most" would come so close to "everybody" that the distinction would be undetectable.
Oh, and I see your hunch that "everybody would agree with my definition" and raise you a "Everybody who has read what the Bible actually has to say about false teachers would find your suggestion that "false teachers" includes those who are innocently mistaken would laugh at your hunch and, instead, agree that, no, the Bible is not speaking of the merely mistaken...," so I guess I win.
Sorry.
Why do you continue with this lie:
"...never mind that it's based only on my unsupported hunch and not ONE SINGLE thing else..."
when I've demonstrated that it is based on a dictionary definition. That is not a hunch in the least nor does it come anywhere close to "unsupported". It's not a matter of believing what I want to believe (a projection of yours) but a clear case of believing what is. Then you dare give me junk about "grace"! I didn't make up the freakin' definition. Yet, you've taken a less than comprehensive list from Scripture and in ironic fashion, falsely present it as the only possible way in which the term can be applied so you can once again hide behind the claim of sincerity and good intentions. I deal with grade school kids that can shine on people better than that.
"Oh, and I see your hunch that "everybody would agree with my definition" and raise you a "Everybody who has read what the Bible actually has to say about false teachers would find your suggestion that "false teachers" includes those who are innocently mistaken would laugh at your hunch and, instead, agree that, no, the Bible is not speaking of the merely mistaken...,""
I'll take that wager right now and any day of the week with the stipulation that it be honestly presented by me and not your self-serving rendering. Because here's the real story Dan: This whole thing started in order to provide you cover. When the term has been used against you or others who "believe" as you, it has only been meant to express that you insist on putting forth that which conflicts with Scripture. So you say, "Well, let's see what the Bible has to say about 'false teachers'." and you think it provides more ammo for your tiring defense, "What if someone sincerely believes..." which is your favorite fall back line when all else fails to ward off more questions about the gaping holes in your arguments.
So yeah, let's line 'em up and start asking. I'll take that bet for sure.
Marshall...
when I've demonstrated that it is based on a dictionary definition. That is not a hunch in the least nor does it come anywhere close to "unsupported".
There's not a question that "false" has several definitions. Some of those definitions lend themselves to your understanding of FALSE TEACHER, some of those definitions lend themselves to my (and what I contend is the Biblical) understanding of FALSE TEACHER.
What is whimsical is WHY you would insist that your choice of definitions is the ONE RIGHT CHOICE.
It's like this:
Dan: Looking at what the Bible has to say about False teachers, we can see that it seems to consistently be speaking of "false teacher" in the sense of someone who is "intentionally untrue" in their teachings, not merely someone who is mistaken on a position.
Rationally, we can see that this makes sense because if merely being mistaken on a teachings makes one a "false teacher" (as the Bible is speaking of the term) then we'd ALL be false teachers because we ALL don't have a perfect understanding and we ALL are bound to teach a mistaken point at some point in our lives.
Marshall: No.
Dan: No? No, what?
Marshall: NO, your understanding is wrong. False teacher means anyone who teaches anything wrong, even if they're just innocently mistaken.
Dan: Oh? Why do you think that?
Marshall: 'Cause.
Dan: Because why?
Marshall: Because ONE of the definitions of the word "false" is "not true." Therefore, ANY teaching that is mistaken and therefore, not true, is a false teaching.
Dan: Generically speaking, perhaps. I'm not speaking generically, though. I'm speaking specifically of what the Bible is saying about false teachers. In the Bible, it seems quite clearly to be speaking of some specific type of people, those who are deliberately (for reasons of greed or sensuality or evil) teaching ideas they know are wrong.
As I said, there is no indication that the Bible is speaking of any and all who are mistaken on some teaching. And, as I said, that interpretation would mean that we are ALL false teachers, which would make the term mean not much at all.
Marshall: Still, that is the one true understanding of "false teacher:" one that includes even those who are innocently mistaken.
Dan: But "false" can also mean "INTENTIONALLY untrue." Why is THAT definition not more in fitting with what the Bible is talking about?
Marshall: Cause I say so.
Dan: Is that it? Your entire defense of your position is "false teacher" (as spoken of in the Bible) MUST mean "false" in the sense of "untrue," NOT in the sense of "intentionally untrue" because YOU say so?
Marshall: That's the definition.
Dan: That's ONE definition, not the only one. Why is that one definition the only acceptable one?
Marshall: Because that's what I think most people think and it's what I think, therefore it must be.
Dan: Do you have any support for that beyond the capricious, "cause I think so?"
Marshall: It's not capricious. It's the way it is. False means untrue.
Dan: It also means "intentionally untrue," and THAT definition makes more sense given what the Bible has to say and just what is logical, which is the support for MY position.
Marshall: Your position is wrong.
Dan: Why?
Marshall: 'Cause I said so. It's the definition of the word.
Dan: it's ONE interpretation...
And on it goes.
Capricious. Whimsical. With no reason beyond "because I think so."
Marshall ad hom'ed...
This whole thing started in order to provide you cover.
No. In fact, this whole thing started as Bible study. Wondering, "What DOES the Bible say about false teachers? Does it really use it in the sense that some of these folk are using it?"
You aren't god enough to know my motives. Those are my motives, not an attempt to "provide cover."
Don't be ridiculous.
Marshall...
let's line 'em up and start asking. I'll take that bet for sure.
You are free to do the test on your own. I have already done a small sampling here. Geoffrey, Alan, Marty and Craig all seem to agree with me, with you being the lone hold-out.
And, lest you think I'm mistaken about Craig's position (a possibility, since he seemed to waver), I offer his own words...
RE: 2&3 on my list. I believe that I have stated elsewhere that teaching falsity intentionally and despite correction is an essential element of false teacherhood. If I only thought I did that then consider it done here.
So, of the first five people I've asked, four agree with me, if I'm not mistaken.
Dan,
If you are going to cherry pick my words please be fair. While I have no problem with your list which is drawn from scripture. I do not believe that it is exhaustive. Nor do I believe that you have made a case for your list being an exhaustive definition. I also pointed out that a false teacher is one who teaches falsehoods.
Honestly I think that if one is to look at a reasonable standard English definition of the term, Marshall's pretty much covers it. If one is to look at some ways that Bible provides to identify false teachers I think you have done a fine job copy pasting the list.
You may continue.
I'm sorry, Craig. Have I misunderstood you?
When you said...
I believe that I have stated elsewhere that teaching falsity intentionally and despite correction is an essential element of false teacherhood...
Did you mean that one could be merely honestly mistaken on a point and be a false teacher in the sense the Bible is talking about? Yes? No?
IF so, perhaps you can see my confusion, since it SOUNDS like you're saying the INTENTIONALITY of it is part of what makes one a "false teacher" as the Bible uses the word, yes? No?
Craig...
I think that if one is to look at a reasonable standard English definition of the term
As I have said several times, if one is ONLY speaking of the term "FALSE TEACHER" in a vacuum (ie, not considering what the Bible says, just the term itself with no context), that YES, someone who teaches something false is a false teacher. But I have been pretty specific that I am NOT speaking of just the term with no context. I am speaking SPECIFICALLY of how the term is used IN THE BIBLE, which seems to be pretty clearly NOT speaking of one who is merely innocently mistaken.
So there ya go. Seems you've jumped the gun on including Craig on your list. Sorry if I'm not impressed with the rest of it.
As to your little script, it's one big ad hominem in how maligns the manner in which I defend my position. Never have I used "because" as a reason for my position that wasn't immediately followed by an actual explanation based on logic or, as in this case, actual support, like a dictionary. Never have I used "cuz I said so", either. Indeed, I don't need to when I can (and do) so easily look to what a dictionary says, or what the Bible says. You don't like what they say, so you spin it into Marshall Art being "whimsical" or "capricious".
I said,
"This whole thing started in order to provide you cover."
so you said,
"No. In fact, this whole thing started as Bible study. Wondering, "What DOES the Bible say about false teachers? Does it really use it in the sense that some of these folk are using it?""
So I looked at the very first post and there in the very first paragraph you said,
"What is the difference between a "false teacher" and just "some dude I disagree with?" As many who read here know, some of our friends out there whip out the "false teacher" charge like a cheap gunslinger whips out his six shooter, with similarly dangerous results."
So now you're saying that despite the fact that some have "whipped out the charge", your "Bible study" is in no way intended to show that you don't qualify for the charge. I see.
"I am speaking SPECIFICALLY of how the term is used IN THE BIBLE, which seems to be pretty clearly NOT speaking of one who is merely innocently mistaken"
I'm sorry, but the more I read of what the Bible says, the more it seems to me you are being whimsical in your insistence that it ONLY speaks of intentional deceivers. But it speaks of teaching wrong doctrine apart from intent as well. Sound doctrine is essential. You want to insist that "fruits" can only mean what nice guys the teachers are, when fruits can be merely their words, their teachings. Indeed a person's words may be all we have to go on in deciding whether or not he's false and if we know doctrine and have Scripture to compare to his "fruits", his words, and they conflict, are we then supposed to arrange to have lunch so we can then begin to assess whether he is intentional in his falsehoods? I don't think so. What if no such arrangements can be made? We can hope he is merely mistaken and sincerely so, but what we know for sure is that he is teaching falsely. That makes him...
Marshall...
You want to insist that "fruits" can only mean what nice guys the teachers are, when fruits can be merely their words, their teachings. Indeed a person's words may be all we have to go on in deciding whether or not he's false and if we know doctrine and have Scripture to compare to his "fruits", his words,
And do you have any logical, biblical reason to hold this hunch or is it just another capricious hunch? (If you don't like whimsy, I'll give you another word to chew on that describes your unsupported hunches.)
"Their words may be all we have to go on..." is a fine hunch, but the Bible doesn't speak of it in those terms, but instead, says we can see by their ACTIONS and their LIFE.
Marshall...
the more I read of what the Bible says, the more it seems to me you are being whimsical in your insistence that it ONLY speaks of intentional deceivers. But it speaks of teaching wrong doctrine apart from intent as well.
This is what I've been waiting for for hundreds of comments now, Marshall. Move from whimsy to support: Show us the passage.
Like this:
I think that the best understanding of "false" in "false teacher" is the definition that just means "not true," as opposed to "Intentionally untrue." I think this not just as a hunch but because the BIBLE SAYS...
Says what?
This has been my whole point about whimsy. The only reason you've offered so far for why simply "not true" is the best understanding is "because that's the definition I like best," which is NOT support, that's a capricious statement, unsupported by anything.
Move from whimsy to support, Marshall. Here's your big chance.
Marshall...
Seems you've jumped the gun on including Craig on your list.
Well that remains to be seen. His DIRECT QUOTE says just what I've been saying. I've asked him to clarify the point by answering a simple question. I'll wait to see his answer to that question to know if he's agreeing with me or not. His words thus far sound like he does (although, again, he seems to waver back and forth on the point, so it's hard to tell).
"Did you mean that one could be merely honestly mistaken on a point and be a false teacher in the sense the Bible is talking about? Yes? No?"
I am pretty sure that I posted a scriptural passage that indicates that one can be merely mistaken and be considered a false teacher/prophet. But I don't have the time to chase it down now. I would suggest that those who prophesied and cast out demons in Jesus name yet were told that he didn't know them might fall into this category. I certainly wouldn't say that I was attempting to do anything more than share on opinion at that point. I'd have to look back at what I found when I looked at scripture.
Yes, it is abundantly clear that you are using something beyond a standard English definition of the term false teacher. However, you have yet to demonstrate that your list of characteristics is either a definition of the term or an exhaustive list of what a false teacher is.
All I asked was that you not make assumptions about what I would agree with or not agree with. I would hope that you of all people could understand why I would ask this.
Dan,
To repeat myself and hopefully make my position abundantly clear.
I agree that MA's definition is a reasonable definition for the term. I further suggest that there is Biblical support for the position (See the comment above. When I have time I'll look again) that one can be in error yet still be considered a false teacher.
I also agree that you have assembled a list that contains signs of false teachers. You have not demonstrated (maybe not even claimed) this list to be exhaustive or a definition.
It seems to me that this whole argument is about the intent of the person who used the term in the first place. If that person was using it in the sense of the standard English definition, I can see how it could be applied to you. If they were using it according to your construct, then I may not apply to you. Ultimately those of us who only know you via the internet can only judge you by your words (It seems to me that words could be considered fruit). We have no way to judge either your life or your fruit. So, maybe it's time to get off of this subject, and clarify with the person in question what they meant by the term.
1 Timothy 1
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 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.
Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
"They want to be teachers... but they DO NOT KNOW what they are talking about..."
Sounds like folks who had no intent to me.
It would seem that Paul would disagree with my earlier opinion.
1 Timothy 1
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
So Dan, anyone you plan to hand over to Satan?
2 Timothy 2
Dealing With False Teachers
14 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.
It seems as tough there a few signs that didn't make your list.
There is a pretty strong consensus among scholars that 1 & 2 Timothy were not written by Paul. So just how much weight they should carry is up for debate IMO.
A quick internet search doesn't seem to bear out your opinion of the authorship of 1&2 Timothy. If you are correct, then much of Dan's opinions are without support since he draws extensively from ! Tim and Titus. Perhaps your point is that 1&2 Timothy should not be considered authoritative when someone who disagrees with you cites them.
Titus is the third letter in the pastorals that was not written by Paul. Scholars estimate they were written around the year 100 or even a decade or two later. It was a common practice at the time for others to write in another person's name. But it's enough to make me wonder if those texts should even be considered as authoritative. That's all I'm saying. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or not.
So, in 2 comments we move from "pretty strong consensus" to the more generic and nebulous "scholars".
2 thoughts.
1. Dan quoted it extensively, so (at least in this context) I'll consider it to carry at least some measure of authority.
2. Dan has scolded me in the past for using the "pretty strong consensus" and/or the anonymous "scholars" as acceptable arguments.
I'm assuming he'll let you off the hook on the second of those. But as I said, a quick internet search certainly doesn't bear out your "pretty strong consensus" comment.
As we go further from the point.
I wanted 100.
"So, in 2 comments we move from "pretty strong consensus" to the more generic and nebulous "scholars"."
I believe it to be a pretty strong consensus of late. Strong enough that it calls the texts into question for me. Perhaps it might be helpful if you did a google search on "the pastorals".
Marty,
I may take a closer look at this. But either way it makes no difference in this context for the reasons I have given.
Sorry, I have had a busy weekend.
Quickly, Craig said...
It seems as tough there a few signs that didn't make your list.
As I said, my list was not exhaustive, but seemed to get the most common traits. I'm not sure what "sign" you are speaking of, though, since your passages you quoted from 1 and 2 Timothy were the same ones I quoted.
What traits do you think I left off?
Craig...
anyone you plan to hand over to Satan?
I'm not sure what or who you mean... Marshall? No, I don't plan to "hand him over to Satan." You? No, not you, either.
So, I guess in general, no, I have no one I am planning on handing over to Satan today.
Craig...
Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
"They want to be teachers... but they DO NOT KNOW what they are talking about..."
Sounds like folks who had no intent to me.
Okay, at last at least an ATTEMPT to say, "you know, IN THE BIBLE here, it seems to be supporting the hunch that 'false teachers' could include the merely mistaken, as opposed to deliberate false teachers."
And if that's what you find in the whole of biblical context on false teachers, then believe what you must. I don't find this one passage a compelling suggestion that Paul and others, when referring to "false teachers" are referring to just ANYONE who disagrees and is mistaken (in their opinion). I think the whole of the Bible comments on false teachers is speaking of something much more specific than just the sincerely mistaken.
Thanks for at least trying to defend that conclusion.
Dan,
Since you have finally admitted that your list was not exhaustive, hence not a definition, then I'm not sure what your point is. The passage clearly says those who "don't know" what they are teaching. At a minimum that opens the door for a reasonable person to conclude that Paul was talking about people who don't know what they are talking about. That sounds like mistaken to me. But hey I found something in about 5 minutes that raises questions about your premise. I don't have the time to spend doing a more intensive search. So I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just throwing out a possibility that an open minded observer might find a reasonable alternative.
"So, I guess in general, no, I have no one I am planning on handing over to Satan today."
Heh.
Well, the day's not over yet, Dan. I've usually handed at least half a dozen bad drivers over to Satan just on the way in to work. Because, you know, we have that power to decide people's salvation. ;)
BTW, I nominate Craig for the "Most Ironic Quote of the Thread Award" for this nugget: "Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." And then he goes on to quarrel about words for another half dozen comments. LOL. Too funny.
Carry on.
Of course this entire three post series isn't about arguing over words.
For my part, I'm not arguing over words. I'm looking at what the Bible says and seeing others who seem to be using a term in a wrong way and asking the question aloud, "is that REALLY what 'false teacher' means?" and suggesting that, to me, the answer is No.
I DO really wonder what the repeated admonition against "arguing about words" means/would have meant to the people hearing it.
Those repeated passages have the SOUND of a rebuke of a very particular behavior, but what would that be?
It would seem obvious to me that merely trying to clarify one's meaning is not "arguing over words," but what is being spoken of there?
My hunch is that it comes closer to this scenario:
This person says, "I believe God saves us by God's grace."
That person says, "but what about the atonement?"
This person says, "I believe that God brings atonement - makes us 'at one' with God - by Grace."
That person says, "but which VERSION/THEORY of atonement are you speaking of? Penal substitutionary atonenement? Ransom theory? Moral example...???
This person says, "I dunno. I believe we are saved by God's grace..."
All of THAT sort of debating and dividing and nitpicking over various extrabiblical theories, that seems to me to be an example of arguing over many words that don't amount to much.
But I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone talk much about this aspect. It'd be interesting to hear more on that aspect of this.
Craig...
That sounds like mistaken to me. But hey I found something in about 5 minutes that raises questions about your premise. I don't have the time to spend doing a more intensive search. So I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just throwing out a possibility that an open minded observer might find a reasonable alternative.
Perhaps it does sound like an "innocent misunderstanding" to you. It does a bit to me, too. BUT, given the rest of the biblical witness on false teachers, I'd be inclined to think not. We need to interpret Scripture with Scripture.
My point here has been...
1. These passages in total do not sound like, to me, they are speaking of folk who merely are mistaken on some point in sincerity.
2. Part of the reason why is, we ALL are fallible and mistaken on some points and thus, we ALL would be false teachers by that definition.
3. Beyond that, Marshall would have the anabaptists call non-peacemakers and those who take oaths and those who otherwise disagree with us (at least on the undefined "significant issues" or "points on which I'm purty sure")... call ALL of you all false teachers. And Marshall's approach would have everyone else calling anabaptists false teachers. Marshall's approach would have pretty much every Christian calling most other Christians "false teachers" with regularity.
4. That sort of watering down of the term "false teacher" to where it means EVERYONE makes the term irrelevant and meaningless.
5. Beyond that, the Bible says about false teachers (and "true believers") that you will know them by their fruit, by their behavior, by the presence of or absence of love, grace, mercy, patience, etc in their lives.
6. I just don't think that Paul, et al, were speaking of "false teachers" being those Christians saved by God's grace through faith in Christ who are living lives of love, joy, patience, peace, grace AND YET are mistaken on some point that someone else (whimsically) considers "significant." That would be an obviously ridiculous point to make. I suspect that you actually agree with me.
Tell me: There is this Christian. He is orthodox on the essentials of Christianity - he believes in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God, etc, etc. Further, his life is evidence: He has repented of/is repenting of his sins and walking in the steps of Jesus, taking care of/siding with the "least of these," tending to the needs of the widows and orphans, building homes with the homeless, etc, etc.
AND YET, this obvious Christian sincerely believes in some point that some other Christian thinks is "significant" and that the first Christian is "obviously" mistaken on that point and so he calls him a false teacher. Do you REALLY think that is what Paul, et al, are speaking of in these harsh condemnations of false teachers?
I can't imagine that you do. But if so, well, not me and we'd disagree.
"It seems to me that this whole argument is about the intent of the person who used the term in the first place. If that person was using it in the sense of the standard English definition, I can see how it could be applied to you. If they were using it according to your construct, then it may not apply to you. Ultimately those of us who only know you via the internet can only judge you by your words (It seems to me that words could be considered fruit). We have no way to judge either your life or your fruit. So, maybe it's time to get off of this subject, and clarify with the person in question what they meant by the term."
And that is a fine, fine answer, Craig, IF the question was, "what do you think a good answer is to the question about 'false teachers' NOT as the Bible talks about it but as a best guess about that topic devoid of any biblical context?"
But here, I'm speaking specifically of what the Bible has to say about false teachers. Do you have an answer for THAT question?
Do you truly think Paul, et al were speaking merely about the sincerely mistaken? And, if so, doesn't that make us ALL false teachers at some point and to some people?
"Of course this entire three post series isn't about arguing over words."
Heh. Yeah. Right. That's all it's about.
What I said in the very first comment in this thread has been born out by the evidence: "In other words, there's the biblical definition of "false teacher", and then there's the definition used by nearly everyone who throws that term around: ie. someone who says something they don't like."
Dan,
I've answered you several times. You have been very clear that you don't have an exhaustive list or definition. Yes, I believe it is possible that Paul was referring to those who might be mistaken. Do I want to put any more effort into coming up with support that you are going to ignore, no not really.
Okay, so you ARE amongst those who would at least say it's POSSIBLE that the Bible is speaking of the merely innocently mistaken in the group of "false prophets." But you don't appear to be going so far as Marshall, at least.
That is, you appear to agree that there are at least topics on which we can disagree and not call the Other a false prophet.
For instance, unless I'm mistaken, you don't consider either "side" (of course, there are not only two sides, but you get the point) on the pacifist/just war theory to be false teachers, even though likely one or the other is mistaken. Am I correct there?
Unless I'm mistaken, you don't think the Anabaptists should call all war-supporting Baptists, Methodists, etc, "false teachers," nor do you think that the Baptists et al should call the anabaptists false teachers, right? You think there's room for an innocent mistake that does not rise to the level of false teacher, if I'm not mistaken.
My question for THAT position, then, is where do you draw the line and on what basis do you draw the line?
Pacifism vs JWT = should NOT call either side false teachers.
Calvinism vs Arminianism = should NOT call either side false teachers?
Dunking baptism vs sprinkling baptism = NOT?
Penal Substitution Atonement vs Moral Example atonement = NOT??
Gay marriage opponents vs supporters = ...yes???
Where do you draw the line and on what basis?
Thanks.
Also, Craig, if you are willing to call someone who is an orthodox Christian whose life shows it in the fruit of the Spirit evident, does it worry you that you might be doing just what Jesus warned about (blaspheming the Holy Spirit) when HE was accused of being "of the devil"?
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.
"My question for THAT position, then, is where do you draw the line and on what basis do you draw the line?
Pacifism vs JWT = should NOT call either side false teachers.
Calvinism vs Arminianism = should NOT call either side false teachers?
Dunking baptism vs sprinkling baptism = NOT?
Penal Substitution Atonement vs Moral Example atonement = NOT??
Gay marriage opponents vs supporters = ...yes???
Where do you draw the line and on what basis?
I've already answered these questions. What makes you think answering them again will be helpful?
"Also, Craig, if you are willing to call someone who is an orthodox Christian whose life shows it in the fruit of the Spirit evident,..."
Since you have no evidence to support your whimsical notion above, why should I take it seriously?
But, you are more than welcome to re read my previous comments which address this very question.
"...does it worry you that you might be doing just what Jesus warned about (blaspheming the Holy Spirit) when HE was accused of being "of the devil"?"
There are a number of reasons why I don't worry about my (theoretical) reference of someone as a "false teacher" being "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit".
First, I have no reason to believe that calling some one a "false teacher" actually is "blaspheming the H.S.".
Second, no one who I would refer to in that manner is actually Jesus.
Third, (and I made this point earlier), I am much more likely to suggest that someone is propagating a false teaching than to refer to them as a false teacher.
Fourth, it would seem that in the context of Mark 3:29 that BoHS would be reserved for actually suggesting that someone was either Satan or possessed by Satan. While you may be willing to make the leap of logic that would equate calling someone a false teacher with telling them they are possessed by Satan, I'm not.
Fifth, in the context of Luke 12:10 your whimsical notion doesn't even make sense.
Craig...
I've already answered these questions. What makes you think answering them again will be helpful?
And unless I'm mistaken, you gave some decent (if indirect) answers to this line of questions. (I will note that a direct answer is always more clear than these vague ones, though...)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying...
God is the Objective rule of what is and isn't right and good.
...a point on which we are agreed. However, God has not told us directly "Gay marriage is good (or bad)," "Christians ought not kill their enemies (and their enemies' children)" or, conversely, "Christians sometimes OUGHT to kill their enemies (and their enemies' children)." or "The Arminians (calvinists) are right on these points...," etc.
That is to say, the Bible is a book of Truth and we can discern God's will in it, but being fallible humans, we can't do so perfectly. As a result, we have had and will always have Christians of good will earnestly seeking God's will and coming to different conclusions on a wide array of topics.
My point is and has been that, GIVEN THAT REALITY, we are to live by Grace and these sorts of debatable differences are NOT cause for calling fellow Christians False Teacher, Heretic, Beezelbub, Satan's servants or any of these sorts of attacks.
My point is, we should rely upon grace and suffice to say, "I disagree with you," or even, "I disagree strongly with you and think you're WAY off..." but always ending with, "...brother/sister."
My point is that there are too many who confuse and conflate THEIR HUNCHES about God's will WITH God's will and presume to speak as if they were God saying, "he's a false teacher, she's a heretic, they are not Christians at all," etc. on matters that aren't direct teachings of Christ and that would be best to merely disagree with and leave it at that.
The Marshalls (and Craigs? or not - I don't think so, but then you seem to keep going back and forth) of the world would have us all denounce one another "false teacher" and "heretic" over nearly every issue and that, it seems to me, is clearly NOT what is being spoken of in the bible.
Dan had said...
"Also, Craig, if you are willing to call someone who is an orthodox Christian whose life shows it in the fruit of the Spirit evident,..."
To which Craig had responded...
Since you have no evidence to support your whimsical notion above, why should I take it seriously?
But, you are more than welcome to re read my previous comments which address this very question.
1. You seem to have a real problem understanding the conceit of QUESTIONS. You will notice my QUESTION was framed in the form of a QUESTION about your position, seeking clarification. (ie, "IF YOU ARE WILLING..." that is the QUESTION part of the statement. I'm not saying "CRAIG BELIEVES THIS..." when I ask a question. Rather, I ask questions seeking clarification because the original answer was so vague and indirect that I was not clear on your position. I often ask questions when I want to understand a person's position better. Crazy, I know...)
2. I READ your previous comments and did not understand your position, hence, the QUESTION seeking clarification. QUESTIONS can be helpful, that way, if they are answered. And again, the more direct and clear the answer, the more likely someone will be to understand your actual position.
Craig also said...
Third, (and I made this point earlier), I am much more likely to suggest that someone is propagating a false teaching than to refer to them as a false teacher.
And I applaud this bit of moderation and grace. It's a good step in the right direction and why I tend to think you are more reasonable than others.
"The Marshalls (and Craigs? or not - I don't think so, but then you seem to keep going back and forth) of the world would have us all denounce one another "false teacher" and "heretic" over nearly every issue and that, it seems to me, is clearly NOT what is being spoken of in the bible."
I think I've clearly addressed this issue a couple of times. Although I have given a few examples of folks I would consider "false teachers", I am much more likely to focus on specific teachings than anything else.
I well understand the concept of questions and answers, however I don't see the point in re answering questions I have already answered. Nor do I have the time and inclination to scour multiple threads to cut and paste earlier answers.
I specifically addressed your question regarding someone who shows fruit. I'll do so again. If someone is living a life that appears to be "bearing fruit" while engaging in false teaching I would be suspicious. First, it seems like it could be reasonablt argued that one fruit of a teacher is what they teach. Second, as we see in scripture there are those who seem to be bearing fruit, who Jesus says "I don't know you". Third, It seems naieve to think that someone with so little regard for trutj wouldn't act in such a way as to appear to be living a fruitful life. For me false teaching is a red flag and would be reason to investigate further, in order to try to make an accurate assement of the person in question.
If you have specific questions about specific comments I will be happy to aggress them. But I really don't see the value in repetition.
That would obviously be address, not aggress.
"The Marshalls...of the world would have us all denounce one another "false teacher" and "heretic" over nearly every issue..."
Really? Of which "Marshalls" do you speak? Certainly not me, because I've never so much as suggested such a thing. My position has simply been that if you teach something false, that makes you a false teacher. If you continue to tell a lie, you're a liar. If you have stolen something, you're a thief. See how this works? I don't really need to denounce anyone of anything. Your own continued perpetuation of a falsehood simply makes you, at least on that falsehood, a false teacher. It is true whether I call you that directly or defend you to the death. Indeed, if I note that what you say is a false teaching, or even merely a false understanding, the label will attach itself in the mind of anyone within hearing.
What's more, for the sake of those trying to learn, trying to be right with God's will to the best of their abilities, I certainly am not about to mince words and say things such as "he's still my brother in Christ" even though he insists on perpetuating the falsehood. It gives the impression that the falsehood doesn't matter.
"Oh, he's not a false teacher! He just teaches that which is false! It's OK, though. He's sincere. He actually believes his false teachings are true, so I mustn't call him something so harsh as 'false teacher', even though that's what one is if one teaches that which is false."
Where's the grace in that?
I'm speaking of what the Bible says about the topic.
You hold that we ought to all condemn one another as false teachers when we are "sure enough" on "some topics" (the ones we are "sure enough" of??). I'm saying that this is NOT what the Bible is speaking of.
In your world, I would condemn you of being a false teacher (in the biblical sense), you would condemn me, the anabaptists would condemn the Baptists. The baptists would condemn the catholics and on and on, EVERYONE is a false teacher to EVERYONE else.
And you are welcome to believe that. I'm just saying there's nothing of the Bible or grace in that position. It's a hellish and ugly and whimsical position and I reject it as false and flighty and illogical.
So, as Alan began this, Marshall concludes it:
there's the biblical definition of "false teacher", and then there's the definition used by nearly everyone who throws that term around: ie. someone who says something they don't like.
Except that Alan was speaking ironically and Marshall illogically and unbiblically and whimsically.
Marshall...
I certainly am not about to mince words and say things such as "he's still my brother in Christ" even though he insists on perpetuating the falsehood. It gives the impression that the falsehood doesn't matter.
That's one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at it is that in gives the impression that grace and humility DO matter.
Crazy, huh?
But where's the grace in allowing false doctrine to infect the minds of the unsuspecting seeker of the truth? You don't want grace. You want to be allowed to believe what you've decided to believe without any discussion or debate. Indeed, you want opponents to stifle. Oh, you pose as one who'll compare notes. But when the other guy is rocked by the incredibly unBiblical position you hold, and insists on something akin to Scriptural support, you accuse him of lacking grace because he finds your arguments woefully lacking. You obviously prize grace more than you do truth. I see no grace in allowing falsehood to maintain equal footing with truth.
As far as those who wish to condemn me as a false teacher, I am more than willing to have them prove their case. I welcome it. I'm not afraid to be wrong because I value being right about God's will and teachings. I require a convincing argument grounded in Scripture.
"It's a hellish and ugly and whimsical position and I reject it as false and flighty and illogical."
Wussie talk. Seeking the truth, and even arguing heatedly about what is and isn't, is far better than a billion people each with his own "truth" or his own "facts" or a cowardly attitude of "agreeing to disagree".
"So, as Alan began this, Marshall concludes it:
there's the biblical definition of "false teacher", and then there's the definition used by nearly everyone who throws that term around: ie. someone who says something they don't like.
Except that Alan was speaking ironically and Marshall illogically and unbiblically and whimsically."
Actually, Alan was speaking out his backside as we have established that there is no Biblical definition of "false teacher" but rather a less than comprehensive list of ways to identify one. Yet, throughout that list one constant remains: false teachings. But THIS part:
"...someone who says something they don't like."
...is Alan's (and, I suspect, your) ungracious accusation regarding those who balk at false teachings. We don't like it because it is false.
"...and Marshall illogically and unbiblically and whimsically."
There's certainly no grace here. I speak logically because the definition I use is the most logical. I speak Biblically because the positions I support are Biblical and those I oppose aren't. And because of both of these, there is no whimsy or caprice in any of my positions.
Marshall...
But where's the grace in allowing false doctrine to infect the minds of the unsuspecting seeker of the truth? You don't want grace. You want to be allowed to believe what you've decided to believe without any discussion or debate.
Marshall, you do not know of which you speak.
How many times have I said, "By all means, disagree with me! Tell me if I think I'm mistaken..."? How many times have I demonstrated a willingness to disagree with you?
There is NO problem on any of our parts with disagreement. The problem is NOT disagreement, the problem is learning to do so biblically and with the grace of God, by which we are saved.
I'm NOT saying, "Don't disagree with me."
I'm saying, "If you disagree with me, do so with grace. Don't resort to calling me a false teacher simply because you disagree with me because that is NOT how the Bible uses the term."
Understand?
Sort of takes the wind out of your "argument's" sails when you look at our actual positions and what I'm actually saying instead of this goofy strawman.
In other words, it's the difference between...
"Dan, I think you're seriously mistaken on this for these reasons..."
And...
"Dan, you false teacher! You heretic. You are not a Christian at all. How do I know? Because you disagree with ME on this position and that is wrong because I understand best what God wants you to think..."
One is a Christian way of grace and reason, the other is graceless and has more in common with the Pharisaical way of doing things than the Christian way as found in the Bible.
Marshall...
I require a convincing argument grounded in Scripture.
Unlike your position on "false teachers," which, by your own admission, has NOTHING to do with what the Bible, you know, actually says.
It would seem that at this point in our relationship that we are beyond the formalities of "grace", especially when you persist in supporting unBiblical positions. I was all about grace when we first engaged, but your "whimsical" defenses of your positions grew tiresome long ago and your default positions of "grace" and "agree to disagree" more so. What's more, I see little grace in the call for grace every time the going gets tough.
"Don't resort to calling me a false teacher simply because you disagree with me because that is NOT how the Bible uses the term."
This is a most ungracious dismissal of the fact that both Craig and I (as well as the guy in the link I provided) have found grounds for believing the Bible includes "sincerely mistaken" purveyors of falsehoods to be among those worthy of the label. You insist that they must only be intentionally deceptive and that they must only deceive in a manner that suits YOUR notion of doctrine and Biblical teaching. How convenient.
"In other words, it's the difference between...
"Dan, I think you're seriously mistaken on this for these reasons..."
And...
"Dan, you false teacher! You heretic. You are not a Christian at all. How do I know? Because you disagree with ME on this position and that is wrong because I understand best what God wants you to think...""
First of all, as I stated above, we began our relationship in very much the manner depicted in the first statement (I think you're seriously mistaken on this for these reasons...). Claims of false teaching naturally followed as you persist in expressing unBiblical positions. If you persist in maintaining false positions, as well as expressing them publicly, the label attaches itself automatically by virtue of the false teachings to which you cling and support. Don't blame me for your self-inflicted situation.
Second of all, you insist, falsely (go figure), that I would label anyone "false teacher" because they disagree with ME. That's ridiculous. Nor do I ever claim to know best what God wants, but only what is obvious by the plainly revealed Will of God in Scripture. There's certainly no grace in the continued fantasy regarding what I do or say and why, though I do understand how it makes you feel better to assume fault in me. What's more, there is far less grace in depicting the correction of your falsehoods with easily understood Scriptural teaching as "Pharisaical". Neither Jesus, nor Paul nor any of the OT prophets played nicer when confronted with falsehood and I doubt you'd label them as Pharisees.
"Unlike your position on "false teachers," which, by your own admission, has NOTHING to do with what the Bible, you know, actually says."
Of course I was referring to having my beliefs regarding Scripture challenged. I didn't base my position on false teachers on Biblical definitions in the first place, so to "correct" me would be less than meaningful. That is, I wasn't setting up a premise of false teaching on the basis of Biblical teaching. I admitted from the start that I'm satisfied that one who teaches that which is false is a false teacher. And again, between the fact that you haven't provided a definitive definition from Scripture and the fact that there is an indication that sincerity or malicious intent isn't necessary even from a Biblical perspective, your shot misses.
Craig had said...
Since you have no evidence to support your whimsical notion above, why should I take it seriously?
And Marshall had said...
I was all about grace when we first engaged, but your "whimsical" defenses of your positions
?
Is it the case that I pointed out the whimsical nature of your position on false teachers and it stung, so you all started calling something I said whimsical, even if it made no sense in context/I had said nothing whimsical?
"No. YOU'RE whimsical! so there!"
Really?
Dan,
Since you have not provided an exhaustive list of marks of a false teacher, nor have you provided a Biblical definition of the term false teacher, I have no problem referring to your position as whimsical.
If you actually provided an exhaustive list or a definition that was Biblical, I would reconsider. Until then you are choosing to exclude any other possible definition or mark of a false teacher for the exact same reason you accuse others of whimsy.
Because you made a list is not a reason.
Besides, when it comes to false teachings, there is no "objective" reasoning. We can't measure "gay marriage" or "pacifism" or "sexism" and define without doubt "objectively this is wrong/right/permissible, etc.
Craig...
Since you have not provided an exhaustive list of marks of a false teacher, nor have you provided a Biblical definition of the term false teacher, I have no problem referring to your position as whimsical.
I understand that you have no problem using the term. I'm saying you have no rational reason to call it whimsical.
Marshall's position is, by definition, whimsical. He is basing it on nothing but a capri that HE thinks HIS definition is apt. That is the definition of whimsy and capricious, as I have shown.
My reasoning is, agree or not, based on something. Something important, for those who take the Bible seriously. I have demonstrated that I hold my position because...
1. that's the way the Bible seems to be using the term.
2. Rationally, the way Marshall would explain it, it would mean that EVERYONE is a false teacher, which would take away all meaning from the phrase and all substance to the charge.
Now, you may not agree with my reasons, but the VERY FACT that I have SOME reasoning (beyond "'Cause I think so") removes the validity of the "whimsical" charge.
Perhaps the word "whimsy" does not mean what you think it means?
Craig...
If you actually provided an exhaustive list or a definition that was Biblical, I would reconsider. Until then you are choosing to exclude any other possible definition or mark of a false teacher for the exact same reason you accuse others of whimsy.
1. I DID provide a fairly exhaustive list. That charge is false.
2. I am not whimsically choosing to exclude other possible definitions. I'm doing so for REASONS. That charge is false.
3. This is NOT the exact same reason I've accused others of whimsy. That charge is false.
Strike three. You're out.
Craig...
Because you made a list is not a reason.
Perhaps the word "reason" does not mean what you think it means, either?
And as fun as this has been, I think I've said about enough. I've made my point clear. I've provided reasons/support for it. I've asked the other "side" to do the same. For the most part, they have opted out.
Until such time as they have something more solid than "'Cause I think so...," I'll hold on to my view as the more rational and biblical one.
The "whimsy" comes from your subjective determination as to what qualifies for legitimate support. You reject mine because you say it is not Biblical. But it is not a made up definition and the definition I use is easily understood by all.
I would add that my definition CAN apply to everyone, but that's because you're only looking to dismiss me and my definition as well as leave yourself room to carry on with false teachings under some less than sincere claims of sincerity and good intentions.
I someone truly believed that God was some sort of octopus-like creature, no matter how sincere and well intentioned, he would be a false teacher. The term does not imply intent, only result: What is being taught and whether or not it is true or false.
We've shown that sincerity and good intentions can still qualify one under Biblical standards for the term if the teachings are false. You refuse to accept that. Sounds like whimsy to me.
There is no Biblical definition, but you act as if there is. Whimsy.
In the Bible, there is only a less than comprehensive list of ways to detect false teachers, but you reject the teachings of the false teacher itself as one of them. Whimsy.
Your support is subjective and mine is definitionally sound. This isn't you said/I said. It's fact.
"1. that's the way the Bible seems to be using the term."
Just because something seems to be so to you doesn't mean is is true.
"2. Rationally, the way Marshall would explain it, it would mean that EVERYONE is a false teacher, which would take away all meaning from the phrase and all substance to the charge."
It seems as though MA's definition would only apply to those who teach falsehood. You may be suggesting that everyone teaches falsehood, though I'm not sure you could prove that statement.
"1. I DID provide a fairly exhaustive list. That charge is false."
Maybe you are not aware that "fairly exhaustive" is not "exhaustive", nor is it definitive. Therefore my observation is entirely reasonable.
"2. I am not whimsically choosing to exclude other possible definitions. I'm doing so for REASONS. That charge is false."
OK, but your reasons are whimsical. "I'm not persuaded" isn't really a reason. Observation entirely reasonable.
"3. This is NOT the exact same reason I've accused others of whimsy. That charge is false."
OK whatever. You keep on thinking that.
Obviously "I'd be inclined to think not." is a much more rational and unwhimsical that "because I said so". Oh, no one here has actually put forth "because I said so" as a reason.
Post a Comment