Solving the Problem of false doctrine

[JAL]

I am THRILLED you're not surprised I didn't waste time on your ridiculous example...

The fact that you lacked the courage to choose A or B only proves it was NOT a ridiculous example.

Come on now, you like to play this absurd games and limit the choices to just two ridiculous options and we're forced to chose one or the other according to your rules of engagement and so I expect you to have the integrity to choose A or B!

What was ridiculous about my example of a Christian preaching to some atheists? Isn't it clear that you're the one being ridiculous?

Are people who ignore scripture and believe in God's "infallible voice"
a) Living in a delusion of their own design
b) Acting as Satan's agent.
Wouldn't a false prophet be the sort of person to create a situation with just two deceitful options?

You're so draconian. Anyone who makes a mistake is a false prophet? I take it you're infallible, then? Oh that's right. You're fallible. You're a false prophet. See the problem with false dichotomies?

Case in point: are you sure YOUR version of A and B is not a false dichotomy? Is it possible that a choice C exists?

Let's go back to my example. I gave two choices A and B that SEEMED exhaustive to me. Either A accept the gospel or B postpone the decision. (I suppose we could add C reject the gospel but I assumed that's not what you wanted). If you feel I missed a vitally important choice C, all you had to do was name it. Not go off some tangent. To summarize, I think I gave you an exhaustive list, not a false dichotomy.

Now let's go back to your scenario. Hm....I don't even see a dichotomy. Your A and B could be complementary. This is not relevant.

Isn't that what a false prophet would do? Deflect a legitimate question with an irrelevant scenario?

 

[Darren Court]

The fact that you lacked the courage to choose A or B only proves it was NOT a ridiculous example.


What was ridiculous about my example of a Christian preaching to some atheists? Isn't it clear that you're the one being ridiculous?


You're so draconian. Anyone who makes a mistake is a false prophet? I take it you're infallible, then? Oh that's right. You're fallible. You're a false prophet. See the problem with false dichotomies?

Case in point: are you sure YOUR version of A and B is not a false dichotomy? Is it possible that a choice C exists?

Let's go back to my example. I gave two choices A and B that SEEMED exhaustive to me. Either A accept the gospel or B postpone the decision. (I suppose we could add C reject the gospel but I assumed that's not what you wanted). If you feel I missed a vitally important choice C, all you had to do was name it. Not go off some tangent. To summarize, I think I gave you an exhaustive list, not a false dichotomy.

Now let's go back to your scenario. Hm....I don't even see a dichotomy. Your A and B could be complementary. This is not relevant.

Isn't that what a false prophet would do? Deflect a legitimate question with an irrelevant scenario?

To quote you

I gave you a simple choice A versus B. Naturally you deflect, going off on some tangent.
Gee. I'm surprised.

LOL LOL LOL

and to continue your words you should ask yourself..

Case in point: are you sure YOUR version of A and B is not a false dichotomy? Is it possible that a choice C exists?
.
.... but let's not stop there with this absurdity... you say "Let's go back to my example. I gave two choices A and B that SEEMED exhaustive to me" Well that's because of your thought limitation because if you'd read my enhancement to your example, it's entirely possible that the convert in your example had got the wrong end of the stick, heard some of the truth exaggerated it with imagination (a bit like you do) and come to some false faith in some false God..... but in your example I had to chose as a preacher either a) Accept the gospel. b) Postpone the decision until they become bible scholars sufficiently qualified. Clearly your example was fundamentally flawed because the two options were not exhaustive and you demonstrate nothing but a false dichotomy. How surprising!
.
...but of course, rather than accept the absurdity of your false dichotomy, you elected to dig your foolish hole much digger, a trait you have exemplified on numerous occasions.
.
And now I'd done again with this foolishness. I think anyone who reads it will come to the same conclusion and think you are listening to the wrong voice.... the voice of the father of lies!
.
...oops another scriptural reference that's of no use to you!
.
Rant way in response, as you feel compelled to do, to exercise your ego, I will let you say whatever you like without response..

 

[JAL]

.... but let's not stop there with this absurdity... you say "Let's go back to my example. I gave two choices A and B that SEEMED exhaustive to me" Well that's because of your thought limitation because if you'd read my enhancement to your example, it's entirely possible that the convert in your example had got the wrong end of the stick, heard some of the truth exaggerated it with imagination (a bit like you do) and come to some false faith in some false God..... but in your example I had to chose as a preacher either a) Accept the gospel. b) Postpone the decision until they become bible scholars sufficiently qualified. Clearly your example was fundamentally flawed because the two options were not exhaustive and you demonstrate nothing but a false dichotomy. How surprising!

Selective reading. Deliberate misreading for the sake of erecting strawman. You're concocting all kinds of unusual scenarios such as false gods and false gospels instead of the legitimate scenario in my canonical example. In my scenario:
....(1) I said YOU were the preacher. My assumption is that you didn't preach a false god or false gospel.
....(2) I said that the atheists were deciding upon YOUR preached gospel (not deliberating over some false god or false gospel)
....(3) I said the Holy Spirit convicted these atheists. That's an objective event. It's not open to some bizarre speculation about the Spirit convicting them about some false god or false gospel.

Are there no limits to your deflection? Apparently not. I should have figured that out when I realized Protestants have been deflecting on an equally straightforward question for 500 years, "If the Bible is your only authority, on what authority do you accept the Bible?"

 

[Aaron112]

because it is not very healthy to be saying "my church has bad doctrine but I don't care - I have friends there"

Whether it is healthy or not, This has happened for many thousands of years, many generations, in religion, employment, government, schools, cultures, almost anywhere there is a group of men..... they don't care what is true or false and won't look into it, they just want the approval of their friends, or who they think is their friends, or co-workers.
WHen someone exposes their business or government, and get shunned or shot for doing so, is that healthy ? /healthier ?

 

[Aaron112]

Please quote the scripture where Jesus says the Father reveals all the truth of salvation..

" “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things [relating to salvation] from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants [the childlike and untaught]. Yes, Father, for this way was [Your gracious will and choice, and was] well-pleasing in Your sight."

 

[JAL]

But let's take your silly example because it serves to point out the absurdity! "Suppose you preach the gospel to some atheists. As you do so, the Spirit convicts them. To them, therefore, the message SEEMS authoritative."... but then when we ask them about their conviction, they tell us that they believe the Lord Jesus is one of seven brothers that come from seven planets..... According to you, woopie doo, they must be write because we have no means to validate the "authoritative voice" they heard.

So the idea of an authoritative Voice is inane, right? Strange that Jesus doesn't seem to think so:

"27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

Are most sheep smart enough to apply a Sola Scriptura test to the Voice? Somehow I doubt it. And that's a problem, in your view, right? Because you're saying that a sheep could confuse the Master's voice with that of a stranger. Oddly enough, Jesus doesn't seem to share your concern:

2The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.”

Weird. Jesus seems to think it's possible for ignorant sheep to recognize His authoritative Voice even without relying on a fallible Sola Scriptura test. Gee what a surprise.

 

[Darren Court]

" “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things [relating to salvation] from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants [the childlike and untaught]. Yes, Father, for this way was [Your gracious will and choice, and was] well-pleasing in Your sight."

Sorry that verse doesn't help you because you have taken it out of context and ignored the specificity of it.
.
You have hidden these things... In context there is no reference to salvation stated nor implied given the context. The context is John the baptist being greatest born but least in heaven, comparison to him not eating and drink being criticised and Jesus eating and drinking being criticised, Jesus not being accepted even with miracles that would have convinced Sodom, etc. are the only things mentioned in context. This means that either Jesus mentioned salvation in order for "these things" to refer to salvation, else "these things" are simply nothing to do with salvation. .

This is all irrespective because we need to clarify things here.

• You're saying that God reveals the truth of salvation
• I'm saying the Holy Spirit guides us into the truth of salvation.

The difference is that in revelation, we do nothing. We sit, God reveals. In being guided, we have to follow. We don't sit. The scripture you quoted doesn't help make the case for revelation at all. It just means that the truth is hidden from us finding without God (be this the Father or the Holy Spirit). Indeed I can quote dozens of scriptures that say make it clear, that we have to do work to find truth but that work won't find truth unless it's guided by the Holy Spirit.
.
"Seek and you shall find..." Find what? We have to seek!
"Knock and the door will be opened.." What door? We have to knock

Shalom aleichem

 

[Aaron112]

Sorry that verse doesn't help you because you have taken it out of context and ignored the specificity of it.

Sorry yes.... talk to the Father, Abba, the Creator. You do not seem inclined here to seek nor to hear what He Says.

 

[Darren Court]

Sorry yes.... talk to the Father, Abba, the Creator. You do not seem inclined here to seek nor to hear what He Says.

Thanks for your personal judgement with more than a hint of sarcasm.. may you reflect on how you judging will mean you are judged!

 

[Aaron112]

Thanks for your personal judgement with more than a hint of sarcasm.. may you reflect on how you judging will mean you are judged!

Like "Sorry that verse doesn't help you because you have taken it out of context and ignored the specificity of it."

 

[Darren Court]

Like "Sorry that verse doesn't help you because you have taken it out of context and ignored the specificity of it."

That's a judgement on an action, based on scriptural evidence, logic and context. I'm more than happy for God or anyone to judge what I do on that basis!

Sorry yes.... talk to the Father, Abba, the Creator. You do not seem inclined here to seek nor to hear what He Says
Is an all embracing personal judgement of personal motives, on personal relationship with God based on the simple fact you don't like or agree with what I said. It means that in your mind there is absolutely no possibility that you might be wrong because by implication you talking to the "Father, Abba, the Creator." and you are seeking and hearing what He says. WOW. If you're happy to be judged on that basis I don't envy your standing to account.... but hey just keeping judging others on that basis if the Father, Abba, the Creator is telling you it's okay!

 

[Aaron112]

Perhaps what I mean is that I'm sorry you don't understand,
and as always, should you decide to accept the assignment,
talk to the Father, turn to God, and He will help.

 

[JAL]

Thanks for your personal judgement with more than a hint of sarcasm.. may you reflect on how you judging will mean you are judged!

Are you taking your own advice? Sometimes I wonder.

 

[BobRyan]

We have a basic problem when it comes to doctrine....

On the one hand the bible makes it clear that we should all seek the truth, that early believers checked what they believe, that people who checked the veracity of messages were commended (Berean's), etc. In other words, correct doctrine should be the desire of every Christian and is really important to God and is, therefore, really important to us.

True.

And we have God's own promises to help us work out the details.

John 7:17 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

Phil 3: 15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.

On the other, millions of people all of the world and throughout history, have seemingly searched for the truth on particularly doctrines, only to come to vastly different interpretations, understandings and conclusions.

True - but all those people listening the relatively "few" Christians at the start of the Christian church in the days of Acts 2 -- could say the same thing. They could look at all different religions and and even different sects among the Jews - and now here is a "new Jewish sect" which even Paul admits he belongs to a Jewish sect called "The Way".

In all ages they could toss up their hands and say it is too much confusion and no one has it right.

But the promises of God - give "God as our helper" to guide us through the maze of conflicting statements. We have the Bible, we have the Holy Spirit and we have the promises of God

That's a problem for all Christians that in the minds of many is solved with the "Well, that's because we're right and their wrong" argument.

Agreed.

The massively failed solution that is of the form "we are right because we always say we are right... just look how long we have been saying we are right" did not work with the Jews, did not work during the Reformation... it just does not work.

The argument that "We got more right" is really hard to justify if you believe God is on your side.... Why didn't you get it all right? Why did any of the others get any right?

That is exactly the claim the NT church was making --

And yet watch Peter "learning" in Acts 10...
Watch the entire church "learning" as they read the book of Revelation at the end of the first century.
Watch the entire church "learning" in Acts 15 as Peter reports what he was told and what he witnessed.
Watch the entire church learning in the first century as they read the letter to the Romans and to the Thessalonians ...

I think the biggest problem is that followers have organised themselves into groups we called denominations based on the doctrine we agree with most, and I'm not sure that's what God ever wanted.

Well I agree that God did not want division, confusion, conflicting teaching and you see that in 1 Tim 1:3-7, Titus 1, Jude 1, Acts 15

Things we know.....
1) If God wanted to He could ensure all believers believed the same thing... but He gave us freewill.
2) We find truth ONLY by being led... "He (the Holy Spirit) will guide you into all truth" and "no-one can call Him Lord except through the Holy Spirit"
3) God calls us to seek His will not our desire "...yet not my will but yours"
4) The truth is absolute, not changeable, not conflicting, etc.

Agreed

These truths mean...
1) We can believe what we desire
2) We think we can find truth by our own cleverness
3) We're not interested if God wants us to know a particular truth, we just think we should have it.
4) We want to be right in our eyes but...

Those are ways God's system can be abused due to free will and the fact that even one who is saved today - may not have been such a sincere Christian last year yet still claimed salvation and was a Bible teacher last year.

There's a fundamental question here that I think sums up the problem....
"Can I find the truth in a particular doctrine if God wants me to be doing something else?"

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2Co 2:4

Certainly true that it is possible to be deceived, and that includes self-deceived.

It is not pagan or atheists in Matt 7 that Christ's predicts will say at the end of time "Lord Lord did we not cast out demons in your name?"

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better bible understanding, I love it. What I'm saying is that I need to recognise that my actions in so doing maybe personal not at God's direction, and if so, I'm likely to end up thinking I'm right when I could be very wrong.

True - but the promises at the top of this post point out that you can ALSO know that you have truth and are on the right track.

 

[JAL]

It's not an offer... it's a demand!

I think you lost sight of the difference. A demand is when I try to force your hand via threats, blackmail, or kidnapping. An offer is when I politely propose a transaction hopefully beneficial to both of us, such as a purchase, a trade, or a quid pro quo. My offer still stands.

You'd be doing God a favor because both Charles Finney and Yonggi Cho, perhaps the two most successful revival preachers in (post-apostolic) church history, insisted that the Voice was the key to their evangelistic and missionary success.

But no worries. On judgment day I'm sure God will be happy to provide you an estimate of how many souls remained unsaved due to the Protestant unwillingness to face up to this issue.

 

[Aaron112]

So I guess my simplistic answer in how to deal with false doctrine is....

Ask God if you should first of all, and if you should how you should.

Done.
There is not enough time to deal with false doctrine since false doctrine covers the world overwhelmingly.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread is permanently closed due to continued flaming among several members.

ADMIN HAT OFF​