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. :kiss:

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

[CHRISTgospel]

I asked this in another thread. wagging my finger your way, Eldermike, you have broken rule 3 ~do smile~ this is done in affectionate jest. ALSO, DID YOU DODGE ON PURPOSE THE VERSE THAT STATES GOD IS NOT A MAN.... AND NOT THE SON OF MAN? So how can God be Jesus and Jesus God?

[quote] 3) You will not post any messages that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, email address, business, MLM, activity, church, ministry or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). You will not cross-post the same message in multiple forums. You will not post your email in a post or thread - people can email you via the site by clicking on the email button - this way your email address remains private.

This particular thread came from my study notes from my professor, Anthony Buzzard. To save you from searching the net - he teaches at Atlanta Bible College.... He teaches all views of doctrine so we, the students, learn what and where these doctrines came to be.

I have written a paper titled "Who is this Satan?" I have struggled with this one. My professor believes, as many do, that there is a true literal being named Satan..... I used to think this....my paper tells why I now question this.

Perhaps if anyone is interested in receiving this via email - it is 7 pages long in a Word document then please shoot me an email. I WOULD LOVE FEEDBACK on this. I need scripture to back up when you oppose what I have typed. Anyone game in helping me with my paper? I would appreciate it.

[eldermike]

You take very good notes. If you beleive I broke rule number three, I am sorry. The rules are very important.

Blessings

[CHRISTgospel]

I like you eldermike. Yes, I do.

now please answer my question for I did yours. How can God be Jesus and Jesus God being that the Holy Writ states.... "God is not a man....nor a son of man...?"

[TheBear]

LOL!! First she mentions it, claiming an affectionate jest. Two paragraphs later, revisiting it, with bold print!... :D

[TheBear]

Mike did not break any rules. Rule #3 is targeted for members, duplicating information, including web sites and such, to multiple threads, for the promotion of websites, email addresses, etc. :)

[CHRISTgospel]

I am a she.... hmmm, thought I put my gender on female will try again....little slow this way and your point is with revisiting?

Eldermike did not answer my question. And so I asked again.

oh laughing this way now....hmmm but but but didn't I say this on this thread too? laughing....ooops

[TheBear]

;)

[TheBear]

BTW, you can access the gender in your 'control panel'. Click on 'profile' and scroll down. You can change it there.

[CHRISTgospel]

and I like you too Bear.... I saw that change

shall give it a go now

[Underdog]

Jesus is God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God............And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

[CHRISTgospel]

Hi extra..... in the beginning was the "logos" in Greek. Meaning God's plans - His thoughts...

take your Bible now and insert "Jesus" every time you see the word "Word" in the Bible.....

I sing the lovely song...

Emmanuel...Emmanuel...God with us...renewing us...they called his name Emmanuel....

sure God was with Jesus....just as the Holy Spirit is now residing in us

[TheBear]

Originally posted by CHRISTgospel
Hi extra..... in the beginning was the "logos" in Greek. Meaning God's plans - His thoughts...

take your Bible now and insert "Jesus" every time you see the word "Word" in the Bible.....

I sing the lovely song...

Emmanuel...Emmanuel...God with us...renewing us...they called his name Emmanuel....

sure God was with Jesus....just as the Holy Spirit is now residing in us

Let's put that to the test. :)

John 1:1-4 and 14 (revised)

"1 In the beginning was God's thoughts, and God's thoughts was with God, and God's thoughts was God. 2 He, (notice how God's thoughts are refered to as 'He'), was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (Again, God's thoughts refered to as a person.)

14 And God's thoughts became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"

Is it just me, or does this revision make no sense at all?

[eldermike]

Sondra, you asked me: please answer my question for I did yours. How can God be Jesus and Jesus God now being that the Holy Writ states.... "God is not a man....nor a son of man...?"

Because that is true. God is not a man. God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit., not a man.

Because that is true. God is not a son of man. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now let me ask you. Are you a student, or are you more than a student? If you believe you are more than a student, then the answer to the first part of my questions (taken out of context) can be no. Many times intent becomes a factor in questions and in answers. It really depends on my foundational beliefs as to how I react to intent and context.

Rightly dividing truth requires a stable doctrine. Such as when Paul told us to teach no other doctrine than the one I have taught you. He wasn't talking about words He was speaking of how words can jerk us around unless we have foundational issues resolved before hand. This is why even though we have many denominations unity can only be possible with a doctrine based upon certain foundational issues. Otherwise we hit a word or a statement that causes us to question our foundation. Try building a house by putting a nail in the sky and then forcing a stick of wood under it. There has to be a first stone placed perfectly, so the next stone never moves.

If you build a house from the roof down, you can't repair it, it must be torn down, and the first stone has to be placed perfectly.

I read your foundational belief statement. It appears to me that you built it from first finding a perceived problem with scripture and then by holding a new idea in the sky you have forced many sticks up in the air.

You stated that you decided to learn on your own, which is not biblical. Then you found agreement with your ideas and decided you found a home, which is also not biblical. If someone comes to you with a requirement that you agree with them, what can you teach them, what can they learn?

I pray that this forum blesses you. I do not want to come across harsh or insensitive to you, if I have it's only out of concern.

James told us that not many should be teachers. Do you remember why He told us this?

Blessings

[an7222]

Do you want the truth? Look at the Church of Christ, the pillar of the truth. Any teachings different from those of Christ's Church is a human teaching.