How Error Works

[CHRISTgospel]

How Error Works

It is of the essence of error that it parades as Truth. That is why the deceptive work of Satan is so successful. “The whole world lies in the Devil’s deceptive grip” (I John 5:19). Exponents of error, so Paul said, masquerade as angels of light (II Cor. 11:13,14). They preach “Jesus,” but it is a false Jesus, not the real Jesus of the Bible. They preach “the Gospel,” but it is a distorted gospel which omits vital saving information. They speak of “spirit” but it is a counterfeit of the holy spirit (II Cor. 11:4).

In view of this threatening environment in which the Church must continually see through the evil one’s tactics, does the Bible provide any tests for telling the difference between the fake and the genuine? Can we unmask the false versions of the faith propagated by the enemy? Can we detect the camouflage behind which error hides?

 

[seebs]

You can judge teachings by the fruits they bear, for one thing.

 

[Brimshack]

Interesting, your approach leaves the Bible itself entirely untested. Hardly a thorough-going search for truth. When ever you try to define the criteria for truth in terms which presuppose the truth of much that you already believe, the end result is one circular argument after another. This is less a test of truth than a study of the generative powers of established dogma.

 

[unworthyone]

Brim there are many things to validate the Bible's authenticity and truth.

Do you believe that the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus was a concocted hoax?

 

[Brimshack]

You are missing my point. The point is that this question defines falsehood as that which varies with the assumed truths of Christianity. My point is that this places christianity itself above question and thus makes a mockery of the quest to root out error. Those things which may or may not validate the Bible are completely irrelevant to such an approach to truth.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Brimshack
You are missing my point. The point is that this question defines falsehood as that which varies with the assumed truths of Christianity. My point is that this places christianity itself above question and thus makes a mockery of the quest to root out error. Those things which may or may not validate the Bible are completely irrelevant to such an approach to truth.

Huh? English please? LOL

 

[prodigal]

Brim, I see what you are saying, but you have to understand that the Bible has been tried and tested for centuries. As followers of Christ, we believe it to be the inerrant Word of God, and this is not only based on faith, but also on facts. Being such, it is our standard, against which everything else is judged.

That is precisely how we are to tell false teachers from true teachers. We may like what a person says, but if it does not line up with what the Bible teaches then we know that the person is speaking from their own opinion, or they are deliberately trying to lead people astray from the truth. The Bible talks about this in several passages such as in 1 John. Ultimately, we are responsible for what we do and believe. That is why God gave us his word, so that we would not be led astray.

 

[Brimshack]

Worthy: The point is that if you define error as that which disagrees with the Bible, you render the judgement that the Bible is true meaningless.

Prodigal: Fair enough, as far as it goes, but the question is whether or not the judgement that something is true can ever place it beyond question. If falsehood is defined as that which varies from the Bible in the present then this effectively ends any evaluation you may already have done. Short of asserting complete personal infallibility, no judgement can ever be placed beyond question. If this is a complete account of falsehood (as the initial wording suggests), then the problem remains.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Worthy: The point is that if you define error as that which disagrees with the Bible, you render the judgement that the Bible is true meaningless.

Looks like:


The point is that if you define error as that which disagrees with your beliefs, you render the judgement that your beliefs are true meaningless.

LOL.

 

[Brimshack]

You got it. The key there is that if you DEFINE error in such a manner, your judgement that other information is false becomes circular, and thus devoid of any real consequence.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Brimshack
You got it. The key there is that if you DEFINE error in such a manner, your judgement that other information is false becomes circular, and thus devoid of any real consequence.

Consequence I'm not sure of but....

You are right in essence, that is why debates are circular unless someone just comes out and says: "You are right, I'm wrong."

Will it happen? I don't think so. Not on this site. LOL.

 

[Brimshack]

Not all debates are circular. And I did once admit that you were right and I was wrong. Of course we had reversed roles, but I really must admit that you were right that day. It wasn't a circular argument, and you won hands down. See, it can work.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Not all debates are circular. And I did once admit that you were right and I was wrong. Of course we had reversed roles, but I really must admit that you were right that day. It wasn't a circular argument, and you won hands down. See, it can work.

LOL. Oh yeah!

But of course I can argue for the atheist/agnostic anytime. I was the best one at one time.

It's easy to win arguments if you can claim ignorance.

 

[Brimshack]

Unless of course the other side refuses to follow your arguments, then it doesn't matter what side your on. In any event what makes an argument circular or not isn't whether or not one side gives up, it is whether or not the conclusion is contained in the premises.

 

[an7222]

Easy. Jesus himself said we could find Him in His Church, the pillar of the Truth. Just look for a Church that is the pillar of the truth (note that it's a Church that is the pillar of the truth, not any written book)

 

[Brimshack]

OK, so if Jesus is the standard of truth, not merely something you consider true, but the actual standard of rtuth, then how do you know that what he says is true?

 

[an7222]

Originally posted by Brimshack
OK, so if Jesus is the standard of truth, not merely something you consider true, but the actual standard of rtuth, then how do you know that what he says is true?

Conscience (I agree with 99% of what He taught) and faith (1%).

 

[Shane Roach]

In my opinion this would have made an interesting discussion on one of the all-Christian forums as a debate on how to establish church discipline, but as a discussion on the Applologetics forum it appears hopeless to me.

 

[Shane Roach]

Sometimes I look at my typing and I wish I could just die.

Anyhow I'm sure you get the gist.

 

[eldermike]

Christgospel,

What are your sources? Is this a question in your mind or a teaching?
I asked this in another thread. If we are going to debate an idea then it's best to say "these are my ideas" or these are the teachings of..............
Please

Blessings