Are You Unapproachable?

What do you mean by "tested"? Do you mean "to have the veracity of their words questioned," or do you mean "to have questions asked in an effort to reveal the already-existing veracity"? Jesus (and Paul) did the latter, but not the former. Jesus' teaching(s) was impeccable. Paul's and Peter's were not (it was only when writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that their words were impeccable).

Josheb said:

What do you mean by "tested"? Do you mean "to have the veracity of their words questioned," or do you mean "to have questions asked in an effort to reveal the already-existing veracity"? Jesus (and Paul) did the latter, but not the former. Jesus' teaching(s) was impeccable. Paul's and Peter's were not (it was only when writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that their words were impeccable).

Click to expand...

I think of it like this:

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Teresa W. said:

I think of it like this:

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Click to expand...

Ummm.... Okay, but Jesus and Paul still submitted their teaching to inquiry but not criticism.

Christsfreeservant said:

The Bible teaches we are to test everyone's teachings against the Scriptures so that we don't end up believing lies and not the truth. This needs to be done by studying the Scriptures in their appropriate context. And we are taught as Christians to exhort and instruct one another and to speak the truth in love to one another so that we are not led astray by false teachings and so we are not deceived by sin, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree, but that has nothing to do with my original inquiry.

Christsfreeservant said:

So, let's pretend for a moment that you and I are friends on Facebook. You are a fellow believer in Jesus Christ, but you are posting things about the Scriptures which are leading people to believe lies and not the truth.

Click to expand...

No, let's not pretend that. Let's not pretend that because that would be outside the example of Christ and the inspired teaching of the apostles. This op explicitly specifies "even the Apostle Paul was willing to have his words tested," but that is NOT the case if testing is insinuated to mean criticized and/or have their veracity questioned. Jesus entertained inquiry, but not doubt or criticism. He openly rebuked those who called into question the veracity of his teaching. He was "unapproachable."

Conversely, Peter was teaching hypocritically between the Jewish converts and Gentile converts and, according to Galatians (and Acts 15) Peter's teaching was called into question and his "approachability" is a matter fo question since he had to be rebuked but later came to acknowledge the wisdom of his rebuker. When you appeal to Paul's letting others question his teaching comparing his teaching to "things about scripture which are leading people to believe lies and not the truth," the goalposts are being moved. You can't change the context of the discussion in the middle of the discussion.

We should follow both examples..... discerning into which category we fall.

Christsfreeservant said:

So as a fellow believer in Christ I test what you said against what the Scriptures teach.....

Click to expand...

As I just did with your posts? Do you see you've now paradoxically become the object lesson? All you had to do was answer my questions and define the terms but that didn't happen and the example provided is not applicable to Paul (or Jesus). Paul did not misuse scripture or teach lies and he most certainly did not entertain the premise he'd done either! You have become the one misapplying scripture and no we get to see if you're "approachable"! (even though that was never my intent).

Christsfreeservant said:

respectfully, out of concern for you and your readers, how will you respond? Will you let me know flat out that your words are not to be challenged? Or will you just unfriend me and block me? Or will you just delete my comment? Or will you just ignore me? Or will you lash out at me with a death wish for daring to test what you are saying? Paul respected the Berians who tested his words.

Click to expand...

The next post will tell us all.

Christsfreeservant said:

If we ever believe that we are not to ever be questioned or challenged in what we say or write we are on dangerous ground.

Click to expand...

Do you believe this op can be questioned? Can a earnest and sincere Christian question the argument made so far in goodwill, ask for terms to be defined, pointing out the inconsistency with scripture, and receive evidence of "approachability"? We're about to find out.

Christsfreeservant said:

Cult leaders are like that.

Click to expand...

I completely agree but logically that is an appeal to extremes and appeals to extremes are always fallacious. We can all mis-teach scripture but that doesn't make us cult leaders. A person does not need to be a cult leader to be unapproachable. Not one of us is absolutely right about everything, and we should want to be sure what we are teaching is truth so we don't lead others astray.

Christsfreeservant said:

Not one of us is absolutely right about everything, and we should want to be sure what we are teaching is truth so we don't lead others astray.

Click to expand...

Correct, and (presumably) none of us are cult leaders .


Let me ask the questions again:


...and reiterate my prior comment....



There's an ambiguity in the use of "tested" that needs clarification. I've cited only two of the ambiguous possibilities but the Greek for "tested" is sometimes translated "tempted" but more accurately means "baited. I assume you do not mean to suggest Jesus, Paul, or Christ's bondservants should tolerate baiting.

Define your terms. Then stick to the example of Paul (because Paul was not a cult leader, nor did he tolerate baiting or criticism).

Not baiting or criticism. Inquiry, sure.

Paul is saying to not take his word/teachings (or anyone else's) alone as fact. Instead, make sure they line up with the Scriptures before you believe them.

I don't think Jesus was unapproachable if He entertained inquiry.

Teresa W. said:

I think of it like this:

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Click to expand...

How would that qualify as an "unapproachable" person? This op asks if "you" are unapproachable. It then defines the "unapproachable person" as someone who is unwilling to have their words tested, but the word "tested" is not defined, and when asked to define the term and put him/herself in the position of having the op "tested," the response is dubious at best. Answering questions with scripture is a good practice, but not when terms remain undefined. I could quote twenty verses using the word "test" or "tested" but they'd all be useless to this discussion if the word is never defined (especially since - as I have already posted - scripture uses the same word in different ways). Furthermore, the Jews in Acts 17 did not "test" Paul in any way that called into question Paul's teaching. They went home to verify what Paul said, not question it. They "tested" his veracity, not the possibility of his being a "cult leader." Acts 17:11 does not, in any way, draw into question the veracity of Paul, or the veracity or efficacy of his preaching. Furthermore, the implication of Acts 17:11 is that those Jews would never have bothered if they thought Paul's words wrong. Paul was approachable, and so too were those Jews.

Are you unapproachable? Are you willing to have your words "tested"?

Well, that depends on what the op means by "tested," because examining words for their veracity and baiting a person are two entirely different matters in scripture.

@Christsfreeservant,

I appreciate the response, but I don't have time this morning to reply. I'll come back later but, for now, answering the question with scripture is a good thing but not where the terms are defined. Define "testing." Define it as you intend us to understand it and define it as you would like us to understand and use it in this discussion. Do not leave the matter unclear with ambiguity. On the other side of the "unapproachable" person" is the contrarian who simply asks questions for the sake of obfuscation. Those two are bad mix - and I assume that's NOT what this op is about.

Christsfreeservant said:

Exactly the point. Thank you. And we who teach the Scriptures need to be willing to have our words tested against the Scriptures to make certain that what we are teaching is the truth.

Click to expand...

Can we amend that to say, "...have our words examined for veracity..."?

Paul was willing to have his words examined for their veracity, and those who did so with scripture where praised. That being said, the second paragraph in this op is filled with errors. Are you, @Christsfreeservant, approachable, willing to have those words texted (examined for their veracity)?

The opening sentence states, "We should never put our trust in any other human who is bound to fail us." I would ask 1) who puts their trust solely in humans and 2) who puts their trust solely in humans bound to fail? Everyone here has put their trust in Jesus, not any other human and definitely not any other human bound to fail us. Unless you can either put a comma in there to better clarify the intent or provide some evidential proof there are Christians who put their trust solely in humans bound to fail, the second paragraph is a red herring, an argument against something that does not actually exist. The next problem is the use of 1 John 4:1 to justify, "We should be in the habit always of testing things that we hear coming from the mouths of anyone." The problem here is that 1 John 4:1 is about the testing of spirits, not the words of humans.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

So, if we were doing as the commended Bereans did, we would take this op and examine it with scripture, noting the proof-texted verse cited says nothing about putting our trust solely in the humans bound to fail, or their words. Jeremiah 9:4 might be a better verse for that purpose. A similar problem exists with the use of 1 Thes. 5:19-22.

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22abstain from every form of evil.

So, again, if we were to test those words with scripture, we find that scripture was at best misapplied and at worst overtly abused (by making the verse say something it does not actually state).... and thereby conclude this op, nor its author, should be trusted. Why? Because there are passages throughout the Bible that warn us about this practice.

Romans 16:17-18
Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such people are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

The truth does matter! On that point we can all agree. Truth begins with discriminating between human conduct due to sin and human conduct due to spiritual (demonic) influences. The two may (or may not) have the same outcome, but they definitely do not have the same impetus. Nor are they to be handled the same way within the body of Christ. Whether or not this is a matter of life or death depends on one's soteriology because anyone who believes a saved person - a person saved by God and the shed blood of Christ, not his own ability - can lose his or her salvation might have a problem of life or death, whereas someone who understand salvation is by grace through faith and not of ourselves and therefore cannot lose salvation, this is never a problem of life or death, but that of quality of life and how well one bears fruit in the saved state.

Monergists and synergists are going to disagree a great deal on that "life or death" part so unless you're prepared to call all monergists false teachers and/or cult members you might consider rewording the op.


What I believe you intend - and please feel free to correct me if I err -s more in keeping with Galatians' 5's commentary on the works of the flesh. Those working in the flesh are "unapproachable." They create strife, enmity, anger, disputes, and factions. They have no inheritance.

Galatians 5:16-21
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Note there are some decidedly spiritual elements in that list but many of those items are simply functions of sinful flesh.

Galatians 5:16-21
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, .........enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Christians do that nonsense quite often without any help whatsoever from evil spirits.

And that is one of the reasons not to (automatically) place any trust in what we here from others but as we mature in Christ to know God's word sufficiently and understand it correctly that we understand questionable content when we read or hear it.

Josheb said:

This op asks if "you" are unapproachable.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not unapproachable.

Josheb said:

Answering questions with scripture is a good practice, but not when terms remain undefined.

Click to expand...

The scripture I quoted was one I thought defined testing as examining.

I'm sorry if you're upset with me. I always try my best to be loving and respectful with my posts.

Teresa W. said:

No, I'm not unapproachable.

Click to expand...

That's good, yes? Would you say your approachability is evident in this discussion?

Teresa W. said:

The scripture I quoted was one I thought defined testing as examining.

Click to expand...

I understood that when reading the post and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise.

Teresa W. said:

I'm sorry if you're upset with me.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...

• No one can apologize for the actions or emotions of another.
• "Apologies" are not scriptural. They are a prevalent social convention that I accept as such but they're not scriptural unless they express some sincere regret for one's own words or actions and an intend not to repeat the behavior.
• It's always best to keep the posts about the posts and on the rare occasion when personal content is thought to be worthwhile to start with oneself and not make assumptions about others' thoughts, feelings, and/or motives.
• If the posts' contents pertain to the op-relevant content, and not about me, especially words of assumption you cannot possibly know, then this conversation will be much more fruitful.

And that comment apologizing for my emotions just provided an object lesson: will the bullet list above be received with approachability or unapproachability.

Teresa W. said:

I always try my best to be loving and respectful with my posts.

Click to expand...

And, for what it's worth, I thought you've done so commendably until that moment it was assumed I'm angry and you need to apologize was posted. There's no warrant for either.


In case it has not been realized yet, the op places everyone, including me, in a curious position because any disagreement instantly visits upon us the question of "approachability." Any persistent disagreement also invites the potential for some of the tangential claims of the op to be evidenced and/or proven. A person, for example, may disagree with something stated, NOT be approachable to have their dissent discussed, but still not lose their salvation or be a cult leader. Unless this op is perfect, impeccable, above any and all reproach, this op is bound to visit object lessons on everyone one who replies to it.... beginning with its author. I've simply taken a circuitous route to illuminating it.

Josheb said:

That's good, yes? Would you say your approachability is evident in this discussion?

I understood that when reading the post and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise.

Hmmm...

• No one can apologize for the actions or emotions of another.
• "Apologies" are not scriptural. They are a prevalent social convention that I accept as such but they're not scriptural unless they express some sincere regret for one's own words or actions and an intend not to repeat the behavior.
• It's always best to keep the posts about the posts and on the rare occasion when personal content is thought to be worthwhile to start with oneself and not make assumptions about others' thoughts, feelings, and/or motives.
• If the posts' contents pertain to the op-relevant content, and not about me, especially words of assumption you cannot possibly know, then this conversation will be much more fruitful.

And that comment apologizing for my emotions just provided an object lesson: will the bullet list above be received with approachability or unapproachability.

And, for what it's worth, I thought you've done so commendably until that moment it was assumed I'm angry and you need to apologize was posted. There's no warrant for either.


In case it has not been realized yet, the op places everyone, including me, in a curious position because any disagreement instantly visits upon us the question of "approachability." Any persistent disagreement also invites the potential for some of the tangential claims of the op to be evidenced and/or proven. A person, for example, may disagree with something stated, NOT be approachable to have their dissent discussed, but still not lose their salvation or be a cult leader. Unless this op is perfect, impeccable, above any and all reproach, this op is bound to visit object lessons on everyone one who replies to it.... beginning with its author. I've simply taken a circuitous route to illuminating it.

Click to expand...

Oh I didn't assume you were upset, I said 'if' you were upset.

Teresa W. said:

Oh I didn't assume you were upset, I said 'if' you were upset.

Click to expand...

Then I stand corrected and will amend my reply to say, "Since my emotional state has nothing to do with this discussion, assuming my being upset (or not) is irrelevant... and there is no reason to be sorry for conditions other than your own. In the future, if respect of others is genuinely the goal, then it best to simply keep the posts topical and about the posts, not the posters." Predicating, "I'm sorry" on the potential condition of someone else's emotions is disrespectful (whether I feel disrespected by it personally or not) of both parties. It is, therefore, best to leave such comments out of any discussion unless and until an objectively verifiable wrongdoing has occurred.

This op is specifically about those "teaching the scriptures who is unapproachable... not willing to have his words tested against scripture."

Teresa W. said:

No, I'm not unapproachable.

Click to expand...

Then the op does not apply to you .

Teresa W. said:

The scripture I quoted was one I thought defined testing as examining.

Click to expand...

Does Acts 17:11 actually define "tested" as the op intends the word to be used?

Teresa W. said:

I'm sorry if you're upset with me. I always try my best to be loving and respectful with my posts.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with those teaching scripture who are unapproachable and no willing to have their words tested against scripture? What does any real or perceived anger on my part have to do with the op? What does any conditional "I'm sorry" have to do with this op? What does anyone's best efforts to be loving and respectful have to do with this op?


So...... let's bring this exchange back to the op .

The opening post does not define "tested," in any manner by which we might discuss the matter cohesively and cogently. Simply quoting verse that use the word "tested" or "testing" does not actually define the term, especially since the Greek maintains two or three different options and our English word does not differentiate the distinctions. How then can we discuss those teaching scripture with an unwillingness to have their own words tested against scripture? The Bereans examined the scriptures after hearing Paul teach but there's nothing stated in Acts 17:11 (or the larger narrative) stating Paul permitted his words to be "tested," in the sense their veracity would be questioned, doubted, disregarded, or disdained. Paul had very decisive words for those who disagreed with him. He was "unapproachable," in that regard but his unapproachability was not an indication of error. He was, instead, completely correct and not untrustworthy; nor was he a cult leader (although some of the Jews may have thought otherwise). The op, in some ways, is correct, but because of the problem of ambiguity the op is in need of clarification and since the op "teaches the scriptures," an opportunity exists for this op to serve as an object lesson wherein the discussion itself serves to clarify the matter and potentially prove the veracity of the op.

Yes?