False teachers

[Leevo]

I felt the need to write this in light of today. In my state of TN, there have been a few pastors in my area to already embrace and marry same sex couples in their church's. I think these men are the false teachers we were warned about in Colossians 2:8, Romans 16:17-18, Matthew 7:15, etc... and personally, would never attend their church, because they are no real pastor at all... The Bible is clear about homosexuality as a sin, and it should not be embraced by any Christians, let alone the people who are supposed to be our "leaders." The Bible states that Pastors will be judged harder than everyone else, I think these men might be in for a rude awakening. Please understand, I write this not out of hate, I am alright with the supreme court ruling, it is a secular issue, as long as church leaders aren't forced to perform the marriages, and so long as my church leaders refuse to take part.

 

[Matthias Rose]

Would you also call a Muslim Imam, or a Buddhist monk a false teacher?

Because they are just teachers of a different religion.

And I think that's fundamentally what we are dealing with here. Two different religions.

One religion, let's call them Scripturalists, believes in an inerrant Bible, in which every passage is a literal truth. We can quibble about some old testament legalisms, but fundamentally I think that's the heart of this religion, yes? This religion believes that scripture lays out a legal framework for right and wrong.

The other religion, let's call them Spiritualists, believes that this thing called the Word of God is not the scripture at all, but rather the direct spiritual connection that each of us have to God. This religion believes that the only law is love. Love of God foremost, and love of our fellow humans right along with it.

The Scripturalists think the Spiritualists are immoral heathen because they do not teach the correct legal framework.

The Spiritualists think the Scripturalists are idolatrous and legalistic, putting their book higher than the true Word of God.

Now, if, in your belief, all who do not agree with you are false teachers, that you have the complete and correct belief so, by definition, any other teaching is false teaching, then I agree with you. In your view, those teachers, and probably about 99.99% of people on this earth are false teachers. But if you are willing to believe that there are different religions entirely, then I encourage you simply to look at these people teaching love, non-judgementalism, acceptance, peace, and justice as a religion that is different from yours, and approach them in the same way you would your local Taoists.

 

[Leevo]

Would you also call a Muslim Imam, or a Buddhist monk a false teacher?

Because they are just teachers of a different religion.

And I think that's fundamentally what we are dealing with here. Two different religions.

One religion, let's call them Scripturalists, believes in an inerrant Bible, in which every passage is a literal truth. We can quibble about some old testament legalisms, but fundamentally I think that's the heart of this religion, yes? This religion believes that scripture lays out a legal framework for right and wrong.

The other religion, let's call them Spiritualists, believes that this thing called the Word of God is not the scripture at all, but rather the direct spiritual connection that each of us have to God. This religion believes that the only law is love. Love of God foremost, and love of our fellow humans right along with it.

The Scripturalists think the Spiritualists are immoral heathen because they do not teach the correct legal framework.

The Spiritualists think the Scripturalists are idolatrous and legalistic, putting their book higher than the true Word of God.

Now, if, in your belief, all who do not agree with you are false teachers, that you have the complete and correct belief so, by definition, any other teaching is false teaching, then I agree with you. In your view, those teachers, and probably about 99.99% of people on this earth are false teachers. But if you are willing to believe that there are different religions entirely, then I encourage you simply to look at these people teaching love, non-judgementalism, acceptance, peace, and justice as a religion that is different from yours, and approach them in the same way you would your local Taoists.

You can't just cut out portions of the Bible or core Christian beliefs and call yourself a Christian. I would disagree that their different religions. They claim to be part of one and the same. So, why then, would they not follow it? You can still preach love, non-judgementalism, acceptance, peace, and justice. Those are the main values we should have as Christians, without compromising what God teaches in his word. I am far from a literalist as well, however, when it comes to what is sin and not, it is clear, cut and dry on certain subjects, this is one of those subjects. The reason I said what I did, is because I do not mind gay couples and would invite them to church, and be glad they came, however, it is just as any other sin, you cannot continue in it willingly and claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Straight couples cannot continue in sex outside of marriage without it still being sin. These leaders ignore the Bible and do as they please, which I would call a false teacher. I think the majority of Christians would agree.

 

[Matthias Rose]

I would disagree that their different religions.

So you are saying that they cannot distance themselves from you, and yet you reject them. "You can't quit, you're fired!"

They claim to be part of one and the same.

Do they? They may use the same word. This sound, uttered by the mouth: "Christian." But, clearly, you don't agree. And, to be honest, neither do they. And as we pursue the paths of this belief, I am not at all sure these two groups claim to be one and the same.

Scripturalists profess to accept the salvation of the one they call Christ, as written in this book.

Spiritualists acknowledge the teachings of the Son of Man, named Jesus, as written in this book.

But Scripturalists worship the book, and Spiritualists seek the divine. Scripturalists have more in common with fundamentalist Muslims than they do with Spiritualists, so perhaps we should make clear this fact that there is one group who, as a religion, worship a book, and there is this other group who, as a religion worship a God.

I am far from a literalist as well, however, when it comes to what is sin and not, it is clear, cut and dry on certain subjects, this is one of those subjects.

Is it? The spiritualists simply do not see it so. They see the Scripturalists as profound hypocrites, selectively holding to old testament purity laws that they care about, while relinquishing dietary law, financial law, and that bit in Leviticus 19:19 about impure clothing. They see the Scripturalists twisting Paul's non-authoritative teachings on Greek abuses of power in a sexual context into black and white absolutes, applicable to the ages.

The Scripturalist sees this as a clear, cut and dry issue; the Spiritualist sees this as a matter subject to the law of love; an area that the divine in human form, the true Logos, authorized us to use our own discernment on. John 20:23.

The reason I said what I did, is because I do not mind gay couples and would invite them to church, and be glad they came, however, it is just as any other sin, you cannot continue in it willingly and claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

I appreciate the Spiritualist tendencies you show here, but you should be aware, that your sentiment is like welcoming black people into your church under the proviso that they will be fully welcome when they turn white.

 

[Leevo]

So you are saying that they cannot distance themselves from you, and yet you reject them. "You can't quit, you're fired!"



Do they? They may use the same word. This sound, uttered by the mouth: "Christian." But, clearly, you don't agree. And, to be honest, neither do they. And as we pursue the paths of this belief, I am not at all sure these two groups claim to be one and the same.

Scripturalists profess to accept the salvation of the one they call Christ, as written in this book.

Spiritualists acknowledge the teachings of the Son of Man, named Jesus, as written in this book.

But Scripturalists worship the book, and Spiritualists seek the divine. Scripturalists have more in common with fundamentalist Muslims than they do with Spiritualists, so perhaps we should make clear this fact that there is one group who, as a religion, worship a book, and there is this other group who, as a religion worship a God.



Is it? The spiritualists simply do not see it so. They see the Scripturalists as profound hypocrites, selectively holding to old testament purity laws that they care about, while relinquishing dietary law, financial law, and that bit in Leviticus 19:19 about impure clothing. They see the Scripturalists twisting Paul's non-authoritative teachings on Greek abuses of power in a sexual context into black and white absolutes, applicable to the ages.

The Scripturalist sees this as a clear, cut and dry issue; the Spiritualist sees this as a matter subject to the law of love; an area that the divine in human form, the true Logos, authorized us to use our own discernment on. John 20:23.



I appreciate the Spiritualist tendencies you show here, but you should be aware, that your sentiment is like welcoming black people into your church under the proviso that they will be fully welcome when they turn white.

You are the only person I have ever heard say "Spiritualist" and "Scripturalist." I think if you or I were to ask one of these pastors how they would like to identify, they would simply say "Christian" not seperated. One Religion. Not two.

If the so-called "Spiritualists" actually worshiped this God, then they would follow his commandments. Not toss them out like some piece of unnecessary literature. God set up a moral law for a reason. The difference between your Leviticus citations about the clothing and the cattle is that Jesus set us free from following the Law. However, sin is still sin. Homosexuality is a sin it is very clear. Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc... This is pretty clear cut. Jesus set us free from dietary restrictions. The Bible is God-Breathed applicable in all ages, you cannot just change it to fit the culture, it warns us against fitting into the world you know...

 

[BabylonWeary]

In Christianity, spirituality is scriptural, and to venture away from the fulfillment of the Biblical laws per some romantic vagueness is not spiritual but merely emotional. We read. We write. We do arithmetic. We use logic. Interesting word there, Logic, wonder where it comes from... This is a matter of prioritizing state law and Biblical law, it's not about whatever mood we're in at the time.

 

[Cearbhall]

I felt the need to write this in light of today. In my state of TN, there have been a few pastors in my area to already embrace and marry same sex couples in their church's. I think these men are the false teachers we were warned about in Colossians 2:8, Romans 16:17-18, Matthew 7:15, etc...

Eh, I'm sure they disagree with you on other things, too. That's why there are so many different denominations. Why don't those things make them false teachers?

You're well within your rights to refuse to attend their churches, but I don't see the problem here. Those who disagree with them will stay away, and those who agree will join them. Everyone is free to do what they want and what they think they need to do to avoid supporting sin.

 

[dgiharris]

Would you also call a Muslim Imam, or a Buddhist monk a false teacher?

Because they are just teachers of a different religion.

And I think that's fundamentally what we are dealing with here. Two different religions.

One religion, let's call them Scripturalists, believes in an inerrant Bible, in which every passage is a literal truth. We can quibble about some old testament legalisms, but fundamentally I think that's the heart of this religion, yes? This religion believes that scripture lays out a legal framework for right and wrong.

The other religion, let's call them Spiritualists, believes that this thing called the Word of God is not the scripture at all, but rather the direct spiritual connection that each of us have to God. This religion believes that the only law is love. Love of God foremost, and love of our fellow humans right along with it.

The Scripturalists think the Spiritualists are immoral heathen because they do not teach the correct legal framework.

The Spiritualists think the Scripturalists are idolatrous and legalistic, putting their book higher than the true Word of God.

Now, if, in your belief, all who do not agree with you are false teachers, that you have the complete and correct belief so, by definition, any other teaching is false teaching, then I agree with you. In your view, those teachers, and probably about 99.99% of people on this earth are false teachers. But if you are willing to believe that there are different religions entirely, then I encourage you simply to look at these people teaching love, non-judgementalism, acceptance, peace, and justice as a religion that is different from yours, and approach them in the same way you would your local Taoists.

I have a science and math background, and one of the most infuriating things for me when I come to debate on this site is how illogical, hypocritical and inconsistent many arguments are. I often wonder if those of faith even understand basic logic because their arguments are so riddled with illogical inconsistencies that if I were to draw a pictorial representation of their arguments, it would look like a 4th dimensional Celtic Knot.

You sir, do not have that problem. I've run across your posts before and I can't tell you how utterly refreshing it is to find someone of faith who seems to have a logically consistent argument that cuts to the root cause and/or heart of an issue.

You are one of those rare posters whom's posts make you realize truths that you couldn't quite conceptualize but in your subconscious knew... that is, you clearly illuminate the truth of this argument.

I absolutely love the concept of Scriptualist vs Spiritualist.

I find this extends beyond religion into all walks of life.

CASE A) There was a case of a woman who got a call from the hospital. Her father was dying and they told her you need to get her NOW!!!

So, the woman jumped in her car and broke the speed limit on her way to the hospital. Police pulled her over and arrested her because she was breaking the law, speeding in excess of 20 mph. She was 2 miles away from the hospital when they pulled her over. She pleaded with them to let her got to the hospital, her father was dying...

But the police refused because she broke the letter of the law.

CASE B) A similar case happened with a man whom's father was dying, he likewise got pulled over by the police for speeding/driving recklessly. He told the police the same thing, yet this particular cop gave him a police escort to the hospital and he made it just in time before his father died.

I think we human beings can't help but be divided between two classes, those who adhere to the letter of the law and those that adhere to the spirit of the law.


One could argue that the purpose of speed limits is safety. So, in Case A) the officer adhered to the letter of the law and arrested her to ensure public safety. But in Case B) the officer adhered to the spirit of the law, and escorted him to ensure public safety.


I think you hit the nail right on the head with your Scriptualist vs Spiritualist. I know have a new conceptual framework to craft new arguments around.

Thank you so much!!!!!

 

[dgiharris]

In Christianity, spirituality is scriptural, and to venture away from the fulfillment of the Biblical laws per some romantic vagueness is not spiritual but merely emotional. We read. We write. We do arithmetic. We use logic. Interesting word there, Logic, wonder where it comes from... This is a matter of prioritizing state law and Biblical law, it's not about whatever mood we're in at the time.

If this is true, then why is it that Christianity as a whole has veered away from so many scriptural laws and edicts in the bible? Why do Christians cherry pick the biblical passages they adhere to while disregarding the ones they now consider obsolete?

 

[Cearbhall]

Why do Christians cherry pick the biblical passages they adhere to while disregarding the ones they now consider obsolete?

Christians who say things like what BabylonWeary said seem to think that everyone else is cherry-picking and that they alone are interpreting the Bible correctly, ignoring the exact right parts.

 

[bhsmte]

I felt the need to write this in light of today. In my state of TN, there have been a few pastors in my area to already embrace and marry same sex couples in their church's. I think these men are the false teachers we were warned about in Colossians 2:8, Romans 16:17-18, Matthew 7:15, etc... and personally, would never attend their church, because they are no real pastor at all... The Bible is clear about homosexuality as a sin, and it should not be embraced by any Christians, let alone the people who are supposed to be our "leaders." The Bible states that Pastors will be judged harder than everyone else, I think these men might be in for a rude awakening. Please understand, I write this not out of hate, I am alright with the supreme court ruling, it is a secular issue, as long as church leaders aren't forced to perform the marriages, and so long as my church leaders refuse to take part.

I get the distinct impression, you deem anyone a false teacher, who disagrees with your personal theology.

 

[Cearbhall]

I get the distinct impression, you deem anyone a false teacher, who disagrees with your personal theology.

This seems to be the idea.

And then, sometimes, I give them the benefit of the doubt and think "Doesn't everyone do this, though? That's what it means to have an opinion and think that someone else is wrong." But no, everyone doesn't think this. Most people accept that they might be wrong, that someone else might know better, and that we learn all throughout our lifetimes. Not everyone considers themselves to be objectively right on a subjective matter.

 

[Winepress777]

I felt the need to write this in light of today. In my state of TN, there have been a few pastors in my area to already embrace and marry same sex couples in their church's. I think these men are the false teachers we were warned about in Colossians 2:8, Romans 16:17-18, Matthew 7:15, etc... and personally, would never attend their church, because they are no real pastor at all... The Bible is clear about homosexuality as a sin, and it should not be embraced by any Christians, let alone the people who are supposed to be our "leaders." The Bible states that Pastors will be judged harder than everyone else, I think these men might be in for a rude awakening. Please understand, I write this not out of hate, I am alright with the supreme court ruling, it is a secular issue, as long as church leaders aren't forced to perform the marriages, and so long as my church leaders refuse to take part.

Amen

(Rom 16:17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.


(Rom 16:18) For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

[BabylonWeary]

If this is true, then why is it that Christianity as a whole has veered away from so many scriptural laws and edicts in the bible? Why do Christians cherry pick the biblical passages they adhere to while disregarding the ones they now consider obsolete?

That's a good question. Is the forgiveness of sins the same thing as an approval or endorsement of sins? Scriptures are for teaching, so to say that we're worshiping a book is inaccurate. It's about the shared memory and prophecy, instructions about prayers and blessings, spiritual gifts, discernment, and it's comprehensive but limited to the free will of the living. If the Bible is misused then it's a curse, and it has always been misused by those with little faith but great lust for power and wealth. Telling the truth about the emperor and the transparency of his clothing, so to speak, that can be risky business.

 

[dgiharris]

This seems to be the idea.

And then, sometimes, I give them the benefit of the doubt and think "Doesn't everyone do this, though? That's what it means to have an opinion and think that someone else is wrong." But no, everyone doesn't think this. Most people accept that they might be wrong, that someone else might know better, and that we learn all throughout our lifetimes. Not everyone considers themselves to be objectively right on a subjective matter.

The bold I think is what is unique to religion, that is, concerning religious matters a lot of people think that their interpretation is correct because everyone believes that their unique relationship with god is better or more important than everyone else's relationship with god.

If god speaks to me and through me then obviously "my" interpretation of the bible and scripture is correct while everyone else is misguided.

I think this is one reason why religious arguments tend to go no where and why you can't "disprove" someone's religious argument. When said person can cherry pick what they like and discard what they don't like and refuse your interpretation in favor of their own interpretation.... then how on Earth can you prove someone wrong in a religious argument.

You quote a passage, they find another passage or they take your passage and apply their "own" interpretation and refuse to acknowledge the interpretation of others or even biblical scholars.

Take for instance the new wave of Christian hate. There is this new movement that paints Jesus as a being who does not love unconditionally, who does not believe in helping the poor, who refuses to even be in the presence of sinners, who does not turn the other cheek... How did this new Jesus come about? Well, this new Jesus aligns very well with a certain extreme wing of a political party. Similarly, this new Jesus enables hateful feelings people have for certain groups. And it is hate. You speak to these Christians on these issues and you see all the classic hate/anger responses, flushed skin, rapid breathing, increased pulse rate, clenched teeth and fists... But of course they will never admit "hate" despite the fact their hate is obvious...

 

[Cearbhall]

The bold I think is what is unique to religion, that is, concerning religious matters a lot of people think that their interpretation is correct because everyone believes that their unique relationship with god is better or more important than everyone else's relationship with god.

If god speaks to me and through me then obviously "my" interpretation of the bible and scripture is correct while everyone else is misguided.

I suppose this is almost like an extension of cogito ergo sum. You can be sure of what you've heard and of your relationship, but you can't be sure that other people are telling the truth or that their relationship with God exists.

 

[BabylonWeary]

Cherry picking... To open the Bible, to pick out a verse, not at random but with a mind to be impressive or significant, such as Matthew 24:15, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand" And then to consider the whole chapter, even the context, is it irrelevant here? Why does the gospel make a reference to the prophet Daniel at the same time as offering a warning against false prophets, even false Christs, and their ability to deceive?

I think this idea of Christian Hate, it's like those who go to the protests with the signs that say "God Hates [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or whatever, the kind of stuff in the news and it's used to build a straw-man argument, a logical fallacy, that we're all somehow hate-fueled monsters for simply being Christians. That's the political system, though. Truth is anathema to the politics of the day, like a sign of the times, put reality aside to feed the beast of democracy. Trying to explain the difference between love and lust, and in some ways this is where Buddhism and Christianity have some overlapping knowledge and wisdom, the intellect must appeal to the Spirit to overrule the cravings and desires of the flesh.

So, no, I disagree with the Scripture vs. Spiritual dialectics for the same reason I do not believe that Jesus Christ is Beelzebub, that the books of the Bible are inspired by God, they are spiritual, however I do agree it's wrong to use Christianity as a tool of hate.

 

[quatona]

I felt the need to write this in light of today. In my state of TN, there have been a few pastors in my area to already embrace and marry same sex couples in their church's. I think these men are the false teachers we were warned about in Colossians 2:8, Romans 16:17-18, Matthew 7:15, etc... and personally, would never attend their church, because they are no real pastor at all... The Bible is clear about homosexuality as a sin, and it should not be embraced by any Christians, let alone the people who are supposed to be our "leaders." The Bible states that Pastors will be judged harder than everyone else, I think these men might be in for a rude awakening. Please understand, I write this not out of hate, I am alright with the supreme court ruling, it is a secular issue, as long as church leaders aren't forced to perform the marriages, and so long as my church leaders refuse to take part.

Well, fortunately for you there seem to be Christian doctrines and teachers for every taste.

 

[Cearbhall]

I think this idea of Christian Hate, it's like those who go to the protests with the signs that say "God Hates [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or whatever, the kind of stuff in the news and it's used to build a straw-man argument, a logical fallacy, that we're all somehow hate-fueled monsters for simply being Christians.

I don't see any evidence that a significant portion of the public thinks that all Christians are hateful or monstrous. Somewhere between 70-75% of Americans identify as Christian, after all (1) (2). Clearly, most people are comfortable with this label.

 

[Leevo]

I get the distinct impression, you deem anyone a false teacher, who disagrees with your personal theology.

This is false. I am okay with disagreement. I find it all the time. This is actually the only time I have ever said someone was a false teacher. The reason I felt the need to was because the Bible literally says that homosexuality is a sin several times. You cannot just throw that out and claim to be a teacher of the Bible, when it is so clear.