What About Our 'own' Convictions?

[Genevanpreacher]

I posted this in a previous thread... what do you think?

 

"Here we go, bashing someone else's beliefs on 'what' the scriptures plainly teach from a believers own view.

Are we not aloud to believe our own 'convictions'?

 

It scares me how Scwenke can be so 'clear' in what he says, (and be wrong 'from my perspective'), and he is aloud to

be a 'believer'; yet someone else can be a 'false teacher' by also believing the scriptures 'clearly'.

 

The road does go both ways. Both use the same 'road', yet only one can be right.

But does one being 'right', cancel out what the other guy believes from his own experience in Bible study, and that for years of study?

 

How is it that two diverse fella's, both with years of reading and studying the scriptures, come up with different views of the scriptures, and

disagree with eachother, how can they say to eachother, you are a false teacher?

 

Doesn't it have to do with experience, spiritually with the Lord? How can you call one's convictions that he learned from God in his own relationship, wrong doctrine.

PrOBably with these words - 'you are not understanding what God is saying here...'.

 

We have the mind of Christ. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Maybe a new thread."

 

 

 

Anything anyone? Do we 'have' to agree?

[Steve Schwenke]

Genevan

 

I do not ever look to fully agree with any of my brothers or sisters in Christ regarding Bible Doctrine.  There are variations of beliefs that I can tolerate.  The spectrum of beliefs within the futurist view of Bible Prophecy is wide.  There are many things within this paradigm that I can "agree to disagree" on, as it starts from the same premise, and holds to the same essential core beliefs. 

 

Further, just because I have a strong disagreement with somebody of their belief does not mean that I "hate" them.  If they are saved, they are still my brother or sister in Christ.  I may choose not to associate with them if I believe we cannot edify one another.  Additionally, our fellowship will be limited because of our differences. 

 

I have demonstrated many times, along with many others, how the a-millennial view, along with the preterist view of Revelation can only be arrived at by blatantly ignoring clear verses of Scripture, and privately interpreting other passages of Scripture.  If a person must change the common definition of a word to make it fit their theology, or if they must invent allegorical, symbolic, or otherwise imaginative interpretations of a passage to make it fit their theological system, then their system is wrong.

 

I believe every single word of God in the KJV is significant.  You do not.  You have already admitted this.  In fact, your personal website boasts of your adherence to the Geneva Bible, which God shelved a long time ago.  God preserved His words in the KJV, not the GB.  Further, I stated in a previous conversation with you that I believed EVERY SINGLE WORD of the KJV is significant, and you told me outright that you didn't take it that far.  Well, no wonder your view is so "creative" when it comes to definitions and interpretations - your system admittedly allows you to ignore the plain meaning of the very WORDS that God promised to preserve, and then impose any meaning to it you like.

 

Now, all of this does not mean that I HATE you.  I disagree with you - strongly. 

But, Romans 14 is in the Bible too, and that chapter tells me that each Christian will answer for themselves to the Lord. 

Romans 14:4 and Romans 14:12 seem most appropriate here. 

 

Therefore, I can agree to disagree with some folks over their own personal standards and convictions, and we can get along just fine.

I can agree to disagree on several nuances of acceptable Bible doctrine, and we can get along just fine.

But as a Pastor who has an OBligation to protect the sheep God has entrusted to my care, I must stand against false doctrine - loudly and clearly.  The day I can no longer do that on this forum is the day I will leave this forum.  (I am not saying that I am the "pastor" here - I am saying that if I cannot act in accordance with the Divine Calling God has placed upon me, then I have no choice but to leave.)

 

How do I determine if a teaching is false?

By comparing it to the Scriptures.  If anyone changes a word, redefines a word, and invents an interpretation that is CLEARLY not in the Scriptures, it is WRONG.  This is how I have determined your doctrine (and Covenanter's doctrine) to be wrong.

 

In Christ,

[John81]

What is a false teacher?

 

The classic definition is one who teaches an unbiblical means of salvation.

 

Today many stretch that definition out to include anyone they believe who teaches anything they don't agree with.

 

This leads to many prOBlems since most recognize and accept that none of us are perfect. Therefore, not matter how mature in the Word, how long one has been a Christian, how sincere they are in striving to live for the Lord, they will make mistakes, they will have differences of views and opinions from other Christians.

 

So, does that mean every pastor and preach is a false teacher?

 

We toss around certain terms and charges far too easily these days.

 

Throughout the course of Christian history and into today we see men who are born again in Christ and live for the Lord yet they differ on one or more aspects of certain things. That doesn't mean they are not saved nor does it mean they are false teachers.

 

This leads to the point that good Christian men believe their different views are "clear", yet one (or perhaps even both) may be wrong. What's "clear" to one believer may seem to be wrong to another who believes Scripture "clearly" teaches something else.

 

This has been going on for two thousand years and none of us are going to resolve these matters.

 

Appropriate attire for men and women...

Alcohol...

Tithe...

Eschatology...

Hair length/style for men and women...

Facial hair and men...

 

That's just a half dozen points of difference among believers. Just because they differ on these points doesn't mean they are "false teachers".

[Standing Firm In Christ]

False teaching was never just about a means of salvation. False means lie. Teaching is doctrine. False teaching is any doctrine ;I.e., salvation, eschatology, theology, hamartology, etc., that is twisted into a lie.

[Steve Schwenke]

When you limit "false teachers" to ONLY salvation, then anything goes doctrinally. 

Some of the points you list here are NOT DOCTRINE - and the same is true on the other lists you have posted in other places.

 

Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude all warned us about False Doctrine.  The false doctrine they warned us about extended beyond salvation, and delved into eschatology.  Just because there are still question marks in your mind about eschatology does not mean that we cannot brand some branches of eschatology as blatantly FALSE.  Paul did it - II Timothy 2:15-18.  Paul here names Hymenaeus and PHiletus as FALSE TEACHERS because they held to a POST-MILLENIAL view.  How ironic is that???

 

Sure - we can argue about hair length, facial hair, dresses only, modest attire, and many other PRACTICAL things, and still come out friends. 

But the Bible breeds men of CONVICTION, not spineless wimps. 

And thus Bible Preachers will preach with conviction, not with appeasement.

 

And yes - we can determine if a teaching is indeed FALSE by comparing "spiritual things with spiritual." 

I am not required to refute every single false teaching line by line.

Nor am I required to give an explanation for every single verse a false teacher might try to trip me up with.

But I am required to name the names of false teachers, and expose their false teaching for what it is for the benefit the sheep that God has entrusted to my care. 

 

In Christ,

[John81]

If one teaches biblically sound the Gospel and other key matters yet believes all women must wear ankle length dresses yet a false teacher?

 

No doubt there is a point of difference between their view on women's attire but one point of difference doesn't make them a false teacher.

 

As we've seen here time and again, men who have been saved and living for the Lord for years or decades, serving the same Christ, yet they disagree on "clear" matters of Scripture.

 

This leaves us with the age old question of just who determines what is or isn't the truth of Scripture? It's OBvious that certain matters are not "clear" or we wouldn't have IFBs continually discussing, debating and arguing over how women dress, matters pertaining to alcohol or the tithe, or eschatological matters.

[John81]

Some IFB teach Christians must tithe. Some preach Christians are not bound to the OT tithe. Is one of them a false teacher? If so, which one? If not, why not?

 

The same could be asked of a dozen other points.

 

What makes you or me right or wrong when we, along with millions of other Christians over the centuries, have each come to differing conclusions over the same passages?

 

None of us are completely right in our views on Scripture. Does that mean each of us are false teachers? If every pastor is a false teacher then we shouldn't listen to any of them. That certainly wouldn't fit the biblical definition of a false teacher or the point of gathering together.

[Steve Schwenke]

JOhn,

Please give me a Scriptural definition of false teacher, and please show me from the Scriptures how to identify them.  Also, if you could, show me from the Scriptures some of the prevalent false teachings from the NT. 

 

The reason I ask this from you is that it seems to me that you are saying that NOBODY can know ANY NT Doctrine with any amount of certainty.  Your reasoning seems to be based on the notion that since "good" men have held opposing views, that both views must have some merit.

 

Salvation is only ONE doctrine, and it seems to me that the NT is filled with many doctrines.

[Genevanpreacher]

Things are going well!

I like controversy to a certain extent, and this is one of those subjects.

Since I am not aloud to give reasons for what I believe about the book I call the scriptures, compared to some here, I won't speak on it.

Yet, a man has to have a reason for what he believes, and it should be the 'scriptures', that he is convinced, comes from God.

I have no prOBlem with men believing the KJV and following their own convictions on what it says. That is called freedom.

I also have convictions.

Am I less a 'man of God' than any of you? No. We are all sinners saved by the sacrifice of our loving God.

Do we not have the freedom to 'believe' differently and still 'assemble' on this forum? Yes, so far.

And if some here have their way, some of us won't be here much longer. Not because we are 'false teachers', but because we don't 

see the scriptures saying the same thing. And we will be ousted, by men's 'opinions' on the 'God' that speaks to us.

[Alimantado]

...I must stand against false doctrine - loudly and clearly.  The day I can no longer do that on this forum is the day I will leave this forum.  (I am not saying that I am the "pastor" here - I am saying that if I cannot act in accordance with the Divine Calling God has placed upon me, then I have no choice but to leave.)

 

And the fact that you do do that on this forum--along with John81, DaveW and others including folks in the past like Jerry and Seth--yet you haven't been banned, gives the lie to the notion that the mods and forum owner are trying to kick people off for sound teaching.   

[DaveW]

The prOBlem to restricting false teacher to only "salvation" is that some say the right things but mean something different and it is often indicated by these so called minor issues.

For instance, the matter of infant Baptism.
Some hold that it is an unimportant issue as far as salvation is concerned.
They SAY they teach biblical salvation, but infant baptism has to have a reason behind it.
And in the vast majority of cases the reason for infant baptism is to "keep the child safe until they are able to believe" or something along those lines.
So their baptism becomes part of salvation regardless of what they might SAY about it.
Also, infant baptism is usually associated with a following of universal church. It makes one "a part of the body of Christ" is normally how they would put it - but it is universal church speak.
So we now have baptism as a part of salvation and (universal) church membership as part of salvation.

So infant baptism is an indicator of far greater false teaching.

And if you examine many of what you have redefined not to be false teaching you find similar issues.

And to introduce the tithe into this thread smacks of an attempt to derail, for you know full well that it is a red rag to a bull for some here.

Please don't let's discuss tithing in this thread - it is a side issue IN THIS CONTEXT.

[Genevanpreacher]

 If anyone changes a word, redefines a word, and invents an interpretation that is CLEARLY not in the Scriptures, it is WRONG.  This is how I have determined your doctrine (and Covenanter's doctrine) to be wrong.

 

But from the view of, say, Covenanter and myself, as you have 'classed' us, (and I think that is pretty classy, myself. thanks!)

we think the same of you. The 'doctrine of dispensationalism' that you teach, we do not see it in the scriptures and conclude

that you (not you personally) 'invented an interpretation', like you say above.

Is there a way around that doctrine? I don't mean in a 'false' teaching kinda way, but is there leniency on material that we don't all see in the scriptures?

I have discussed with people on dispensationalism, and they do a double take. They say, What?

Some people just aren't focused on these issues and know nothing about them, does that make them weak in your eyes?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

[DaveW]

This is an independent Baptist forum and many of the basics are defined in the forum rules.

Anyone who comes here and teaches what is contrary to board rules and position deserves to be warned and ejected if they continue to do so.

In my view, anyone who is not in agreement with the board basics should not be allowed to run teaching threads - and yet it happens here.
Take part in discussions? Sure.
But not to lead a study thread.

Good measured discussion is helpful to all.
But if you don't agree with what the board clearly states as core beliefs for the board, and have no willingness to discuss and possibly change then why are you here? (Generic you, not specifically you.)

Now someone such as yourself, who has a different position on a few issues and is OBviously not willing to change on that, but is happy to discuss other issues and let that issue slide whilst here, is fine.
But don't come with an attitude that the forum is wrong and then constantly try to teach that the board is wrong on stated beliefs.
like some do.......

[Genevanpreacher]

Irrelevant SFIC. What some 'call' light is darkness, and they perceive what others 'call' light darkness.

Can I, who believes different than some here on the teaching of 'dispensationalism', exist here with

others who believe different than me on issues regarding , say, Matthew 24, Luke 13, John 21? (hope I got those chapters right)

Is that a division line?

Am I a false teacher?