How do we know . . . .

[racer]

If we are being taught a "false Gospel?"

 

[ScottBot]

The Holy Spirit will tell you.

 

[sunlover1]

If we are being taught a "false Gospel?"

Check it against Scripture.

 

[ScottBot]

Check it against Scripture.

The problem with that approach is that the people who teach a "false gospel" typically back it up WITH Scripture.

See the examples of Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, et al.

 

[InnocentOdion]

If we are being taught a "false Gospel?"

Personally, I think truth is in the language. Doctrines can be changed, but language always gives hidden insight into the origin.
Which is why I believe what I do.

 

[simonthezealot]

The problem with that approach is that the people who teach a "false gospel" typically back it up WITH Scripture.

See the examples of Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, et al.

IT'S A MATTER OF DIGGING DEEPER...
And once the others dug deeper they were able to prove them wrong, its the same reason there are differing interprative understandings scholars haven't dug deep enough.

 

[disasm]

If we are being taught a "false Gospel?"

If it's not something that was always taught since the Apostles.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[sunlover1]

The problem with that approach is that the people who teach a "false gospel" typically back it up WITH Scripture.

And so they do try yep.
But it's the approach we were given,
and it's worked well for me, did you
have another?

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

The problem with that approach is that the people who teach a "false gospel" typically back it up WITH Scripture.

See the examples of Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, et al.

So, you would rather have the traditions and failings of errant men over a proper understanding of the inerrant Scriptures?????

Go Cards!

 

[disasm]

So, you would rather have the traditions and failings of errant men over a proper understanding of the inerrant Scriptures?????

Go Cards!

The Traditions (capital T) are the proper understanding of the Scriptures. They merely clarify what most protestants leave up to interpretation.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Ancient History Sourcebook:
St. Vincent of Lerins:
The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434

From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium​

A.D. 434​

[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] *​

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.​

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.​

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.​

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.​

Forgive me...

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

I use
The Holy Spirit
The Bible
Apostolic Teaching
The Creeds
Not always in that order. Sometimes it's hard to descern the voice of the Spirit, but when that's coupled with the memorized Nicean Creed (which is scripturally sound. Think of it as the gospel in a nutshell) I can usually say "Oh woops, that's off track" or "Alright we're on the right train"
Why do you ask?

 

[simonthezealot]

If we are being taught a "false Gospel?"

3 step process...
Rely on prayer, scripture and on the counsel of fellow believers.

 

[ScottBot]

I rely on these 3 principles for proper interpretation:

1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the wholeness of Scripture.
The meaning of the sacred text, and subsequently the meaning of each individual section of Scripture, can only be correctly understood when viewed within the context of the entirety and unity of all of Scripture. Individual passages cannot be isolated from the overall message of Scripture if they are to be interpreted correctly.

2. Read the Scriptures within the living Tradition of the whole Church.
To ensure the interpretation is in its proper exegetical, linguistic, historical, and cultural context, it is important to study the fathers and doctors of the Church. Proper exegesis cannot be separated from the living Tradition of the Church. This is meant to emphasize that modernistic approaches to biblical study, as valuable as they may be, cannot adequately elucidate the full meaning of the Scriptures. Context is as important as content.

3. Be attentive to the analogy of the faith.
By analogy of the faith, it means the coherence of truths of the faith among themselves within the whole plan of Salvation. The message of Scripture must take into context that its writing was provided for the sake of our salvation. This point is crucial in understanding the proper context of individual sections of Scripture in light of the whole.

 

[racer]

Scripture clearly tells us:

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Clearly, God expects that we can discern His Gospel individually even though many are guided by the church. This first clue that He not only trusts that we are capable, but that he expects us to do this is that He holds us personally accountable for our actions-our sins. How could he judge us individually if we are not capable of properly discerning what right or wrong? No where are we instructed to simply do what the Church tells us and we're okay.

How are we to determine if our church is teaching a false Gospel if we can not properly discern what Scripture teaches?

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Every Christian church I know of teaches that God is the Triune God, that man is sinful, that Christ, out of love for us was born of a virgin, that he died, rose again, and will come again.

Any church that disagree with any of those fundamental truths of Christianity is probably false.

 

[ticker]

How do we know . . . .

If we are being taught a "false Gospel?"

If it's one that teaches that you are in any way repsonsible for your salvation (...both before and after becoming a Christian), or even just responsible for making spiritual progress in your walk (such as your sanctification), then it's most certainly a false gospel.

And if people get on that wrong track of thinking (which unforuntately happens as a result of being fooled by the lies of the enemy), and are living a life motivated by fear (instead of motivated by love), then God's grace-filled gospel (which is actually meant to set you free) becomes itself legalistic and religious in its meaning.

So here's a hint.....if you consider yourself "religious", then I would say you've bought into a false gospel.

Peace

 

[ticker]

Cue the legalists...

 

[Montalban]

And so they do try yep.
But it's the approach we were given,
and it's worked well for me, did you
have another?

Yes. At Ecumenical Councils the ruling on truth would be "what we have always taught".

 

[sunlover1]

Yes. At Ecumenical Councils the ruling on truth would be "what we have always taught".

That method doesnt seem to be working real well.
But I'm partial to God's idea to search
the 'Scriptures' to make sure what men say is so.

But we all have our own choices to make.
And God is gracious.

sunlover