False teachers

[tango]

I would have thought that objective didn't state wrong or right but only gave facts?

Not necessarily.

If you teach people that 2+2 = 5 then it's perfectly objective to point out that 2+2=4 and you are therefore wrong in your teaching. If "2+2=4" is an objective fact then it logically follows, whether explicitly stated or not, that your teaching "2+2=5" is wrong. If you wanted to defend your teaching you'd need to show that you were correct, or that 4=5 and therefore the two statements were equivalent to each other.

If you were teaching that 2+2=5 and someone were to come along and say "I don't know, that doesn't seem right to me" then you'd have a subjective assessment.

 

[Lamb]

Actually objective would be

So and so teaches this

and then

Theotherguy teaches this

Not inserting any opinion of what is right or wrong. THAT is objective; leaving opinion out.

 

[tango]

Actually objective would be

So and so teaches this

and then

Theotherguy teaches this

Not inserting any opinion of what is right or wrong. THAT is objective; leaving opinion out.

If it's not a question of opinion it's still objective. Try this:

GoodPastor teaches that Jesus Christ was the Word made flesh who died for our sins.

BadPastor teaches that Jesus Christ didn't love people.

Scripture teaches that Jesus loved the people he was with.

Therefore BadPastor teaches the opposite of what Scripture teaches.

Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and was the Word made flesh.

Therefore GoodPastor's teachings align with Scripture.

Where's the opinion in there? We're not talking about whether a pastor's preference for the NIV over the NKJV is good or bad, we're looking at clearly defined matters of fact where a teacher contradicts Scripture.

If we're saying "SomePastor teaches that drinking alcohol is sinful but I think he's wrong" you've introduced an opinion unless you want to provide an objective reference as to why you think he is wrong. If SomePastor has quoted Eph 5:18 to support his case it would still be objective to say that the verse talks of not being drunk with wine rather than not drinking any wine at all.

 

[Hammster]

Actually objective would be

So and so teaches this

and then

Theotherguy teaches this

Not inserting any opinion of what is right or wrong. THAT is objective; leaving opinion out.

That's your opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Lamb]

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


LOL You guys just crack me up. Now back to the topic

 

[tango]

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


LOL You guys just crack me up. Now back to the topic

So how is saying "Scripture teaches that we must test all things, Pastor Joe Blow teaches that there's no need to test, therefore Pastor Joe Blow's teachings contradict Scripture" in any way influenced by personal feelings or opinions?

 

[Hammster]

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


LOL You guys just crack me up. Now back to the topic

If it's not personal, it's objective.

Hank Hanagraaf and Benny Hinn are friends. They've had dinner together in the past on multiple occasions.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Ruth]

Just being honest on what I feel: if Jesus Christ saw this thread he would have a heart attack!!

 

[tango]

Just being honest on what I feel: if Jesus Christ saw this thread he would have a heart attack!!

Why do you say that?

 

[Ruth]

I can't explain a reason it's just something I thought.

 

[psalms 91]

I agree Ruth

 

[Hammster]

Just being honest on what I feel: if Jesus Christ saw this thread he would have a heart attack!!

You should check out Matthew 23.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

I agree Ruth

You should check out Matthew 23.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[tango]

I can't explain a reason it's just something I thought.

Given Jesus warned us about false christs and false prophets I'm not sure why he would have a heart attack because of people looking out for false christs and false prophets.

 

[psalms 91]

Discussion is one thing endlessly beating up on certain beliefs is another. Fort any who wish to see it happen in front of them Jesus had a word about those who sought signs

 

[tango]

Discussion is one thing endlessly beating up on certain beliefs is another. Fort any who wish to see it happen in front of them Jesus had a word about those who sought signs

Beating up on certain beliefs is entirely appropriate if those beliefs are false, no?

If the beliefs are false it's fair to "beat up on them"; if they are true then those who hold them are free to defend them. We can't follow the Scriptural call to "test all things" without asking questions, and we can't follow the equally Scriptural call to "mark and avoid" those who cause offence contrary to sound doctrine unless we can figure out what is sound doctrine.

 

[Hammster]

Discussion is one thing endlessly beating up on certain beliefs is another. Fort any who wish to see it happen in front of them Jesus had a word about those who sought signs

If we could have a discussion, that would be a good thing. But those who support the false teachers don't want to have a discussion. They just want to criticize those who bring forth evidence of the false teachings.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

In other words if I dont agree then it cant be right

 

[Hammster]

In other words if I dont agree then it cant be right

No. In other words, if you don't agree, make an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[tango]

In other words if I dont agree then it cant be right

No, as Hammster says if you don't agree then look at the argument. Of course that requires that there actually be an argument, which among people pushing some of the new wave hypercharismatic stuff seems to be vanishingly rare.

If "the argument" is little more than "it's anointed" or "you can't use carnal reasoning" then essentially there is no argument because anything could be presented and hidden behind comments like that. Likewise "it bears witness with my spirit", "it resonates with my spirit", "I know it to be true in my heart" and the like have little value because however much that works for you it isn't very persuasive for The Other Guy who can say the exact same thing about the exact opposite position.

Personally I quite like looking at viewpoints opposed to my own because it makes me consider my position, sharpen or change my stance as necessary, and improve or reconsider the reasoning behind my stance. If all I've got to go up against is "it's anointed" it's like nailing jelly to the wall.