False teachers

[tango]

:crazy:

Nope, no pretending. That's a sure way to bad outcomes.

:fish2:

It seems like a fair question to me, to ask "If Pastor Joe Blow taught X would it make him a false teacher?". If we could agree that X is a false teaching then anyone who teaches it is teaching falsehood.

It's not necessarily as simple as "Pastor Joe Blow is a false teacher because he teaches one thing that is false", although if it's as fundamental as denying the very words of Jesus Christ we might do well to treat anything else he teaches with caution.

And, of course, questions like this are usually loaded with a followup. But either way it's a fair question.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It seems like a fair question to me, to ask "If Pastor Joe Blow taught X would it make him a false teacher?". If we could agree that X is a false teaching then anyone who teaches it is teaching falsehood.

It's not necessarily as simple as "Pastor Joe Blow is a false teacher because he teaches one thing that is false", although if it's as fundamental as denying the very words of Jesus Christ we might do well to treat anything else he teaches with caution.

And, of course, questions like this are usually loaded with a followup. But either way it's a fair question.

It's hypothetical character assassination and that is always a bad way to go.

 

[psalms 91]

It's hypothetical character assassination and that is always a bad way to go.

But so many seem to want to go that way, especially Word of Faith teachers while ignoring or denying their own false teaching in the denom

 

[Hammster]

But so many seem to want to go that way, especially Word of Faith teachers while ignoring or denying their own false teaching in the denom

Examples?

 

[Hammster]

It seems like a fair question to me, to ask "If Pastor Joe Blow taught X would it make him a false teacher?". If we could agree that X is a false teaching then anyone who teaches it is teaching falsehood.

It's not necessarily as simple as "Pastor Joe Blow is a false teacher because he teaches one thing that is false", although if it's as fundamental as denying the very words of Jesus Christ we might do well to treat anything else he teaches with caution.

And, of course, questions like this are usually loaded with a followup. But either way it's a fair question.

The problem arises when one knows that it really from a teacher/leader that they follow. And when they know it's s false teaching. Then they will perform many songs and dances to avoid addressing the issue, either attacking the person who brought it up, marginalizing them, or acting as if it's silly to even discuss. Or all three.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Knowledge and testimony does nothing. Proof does everything. Concrete proof. What proof of healing (in ANY case you are aware of) do you have? Separate of that, we should be skeptical, and so should you.

Faith is knowing that which cannot be proven to others through material means. Riches and healing in scriptural context are in no way limited to the material and physical. In fact they lean more so towards the afterlife and a means to attain it. Healing is healing of the damaged, bent, demented soul. The blind and deaf that where healed in scripture where blind to truth and deaf to God's law. To be rich is to be freely giving under God and in such being rich in goodness of soul and rich in the rewards of a blessed afterlife under God.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But so many seem to want to go that way, especially Word of Faith teachers while ignoring or denying their own false teaching in the denom

With specific teachers, such as Kenneth Copeland, there is no need for hypotheticals because his spoken words contain enough errors.

 

[tango]

It's hypothetical character assassination and that is always a bad way to go.

I wouldn't have said that. It's perfectly reasonable to ask something like "Is the teaching that Jesus Christ was one of many christs true or false?". If it's false and someone teaches it then we can conclude that the someone needs to be approached with caution, no? How is it hypothetical character assassination to ask whether a particular teaching is sound or not?

 

[tango]

But so many seem to want to go that way, especially Word of Faith teachers while ignoring or denying their own false teaching in the denom

So why not start a thread to look at some of those teachings and explore whether or not they are Scripturally sound? Otherwise all you have is a claim that bad teaching isn't really so bad because other people have bad teaching too. Isn't it better to root out all of the bad teaching and focus on what is good?

 

[psalms 91]

Or perhaps leave each christian denom to their own beliefs, if they are false then they will be proven false in time wont they without any help from us.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wouldn't have said that. It's perfectly reasonable to ask something like "Is the teaching that Jesus Christ was one of many christs true or false?". If it's false and someone teaches it then we can conclude that the someone needs to be approached with caution, no? How is it hypothetical character assassination to ask whether a particular teaching is sound or not?

Asking a question is fine, putting hypothetical words into Pope Francs' mouth is quite another. I am sure you can see the difference for yourself so why are you labouring this point as if there is no difference?

 

[Hammster]

Asking a question is fine, putting hypothetical words into Pope Francs' mouth is quite another. I am sure you can see the difference for yourself so why are you labouring this point as if there is no difference?

Let's pretend that he didn't actually say them (as you are already doing). Is what was posted a false teaching?

 

[tango]

Or perhaps leave each christian denom to their own beliefs, if they are false then they will be proven false in time wont they without any help from us.

How does that fit with "test all things, hold fast what is good", or "note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" or "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints"?

There's little point going into the world to make disciples if we then just shrug and leave them to follow whatever silly theologies are presented to them by the wolves who arise from within the church. It would be akin to bailing water out of a boat but not worrying about the holes below the waterline.

 

[tango]

Asking a question is fine, putting hypothetical words into Pope Francs' mouth is quite another. I am sure you can see the difference for yourself so why are you labouring this point as if there is no difference?

Because the question was whether a particular teaching was false. If the teaching is accepted as false then whether Pope Francis (or anyone else for the matter) actually taught it may be a followup discussion. But whether or not Pope Francis said it isn't related to whether it's true or false.

If it's accepted to be false and also accepted that Pope Francis said it then there are obvious questions about Pope Francis. If it's accepted to be false and Pope Francis saying it is disputed then that's a separate discussion, no?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Because the question was whether a particular teaching was false. If the teaching is accepted as false then whether Pope Francis (or anyone else for the matter) actually taught it may be a followup discussion. But whether or not Pope Francis said it isn't related to whether it's true or false.

If it's accepted to be false and also accepted that Pope Francis said it then there are obvious questions about Pope Francis. If it's accepted to be false and Pope Francis saying it is disputed then that's a separate discussion, no?

But Pope Francis didn't say "it" so this whole line of questioning is hypothetical character assassination.

 

[tango]

But Pope Francis didn't say "it" so this whole line of questioning is hypothetical character assassination.

Only if the claim is made that Pope Francis did say it. Until anyone does make the claim that Pope Francis said something then the best you might have is hypothetical hypothetical character assassination, which is sufficiently far removed from reality to be irrelevant. Why not discuss whether the teaching is true or false and look at whether or not Pope Francis actually taught it if such an allegation is actually made?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only if the claim is made that Pope Francis did say it. Until anyone does make the claim that Pope Francis said something then the best you might have is hypothetical hypothetical character assassination, which is sufficiently far removed from reality to be irrelevant. Why not discuss whether the teaching is true or false and look at whether or not Pope Francis actually taught it if such an allegation is actually made?

The claim was made, have you read this thread?

 

[tango]

The claim was made, have you read this thread?

I've read it although may have missed a post or two, it is quite a long thread

Either way the validity or otherwise of a teaching isn't a function of who said it, so the discussion of whether a teaching is valid or not is unrelated to the discussion of whether Pope Francis promoted any given teaching.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've read it although may have missed a post or two, it is quite a long thread

Either way the validity or otherwise of a teaching isn't a function of who said it, so the discussion of whether a teaching is valid or not is unrelated to the discussion of whether Pope Francis promoted any given teaching.

I am not very concerned with hypothetical false teachings and if that were all that was presented then it would have gone without remark from me but because it was put into the mouth of a "Catholic priest" and into the Pope's mouth too it was rejected as a kind of character assassination (which it is). Now can we move on?

 

[tango]

I am not very concerned with hypothetical false teachings and if that were all that was presented then it would have gone without remark from me but because it was put into the mouth of a "Catholic priest" and into the Pope's mouth too it was rejected as a kind of character assassination (which it is). Now can we move on?

I'd have said a teaching is true or false as a matter of fact, not as a hypothetical issue. But if you don't want to discuss something nobody can force you.