Beware of False Doctrine

[@tvtime5050]

You gave me just what I needed to here this morning,and for my walk with the lord , I’ve been a pastor for 35yrs plus,and all my fellow pastors and churches are letting God down ,and try to make me feel that I don’t love others because I stand on the doctrine of Jesus Christ, it’s good to know there’s still some that stand on the truth,please keep it up I’ll be following and praying for you,pastor Billy Stewart

[@Sunshine-tg7yy]

Without repentance no salvation!

[@Kman.]

Sunshine...Repentance however is merely a *CHANGE of MIND* not a turning from sin.

[@Sunshine-tg7yy]

Kman Repentance it’s not just changing your mind, it’s feeling remorse and regret for what you did before, and turning away from it as a result of giving your life to Jesus. Mark 9:42-48. Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin, to tear it out ; if your food causes you to sin, cut it off; and if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; and whoever causes someone else to sin it’s better for him if a great millstone was put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.... definitely Jesus doesn’t want people to relax in their sin but to battle against it!

[@Kman.]

*SUNSHINE* ...You won't find "feeling" attached to repentance a/where in the bible, nor "regret or that "feeling" of *REMORSE* . Also, you've combined 2 different things together and you're trying to make it *ONE* Sadly, you've taken on the world's view of repentance as a result of hearing so many people say, "Well he isn't "sorry" or, "I don't see the tears" or, "They are only sorry they were caught", etc. Here... *ACTS **26:20* "...they should repent *AND* turn to God, and do works meet for repentance". The verse is quite clear, that *REPENTANCE* is distinct and separate from the "good works". Your quotation of Mark 9 is disconnected from the thought altogether...it's like s/body talking about the price of oil in China. When s/one *REPENTS* they have changed their mind, and as a *RESULT* the actions to *FOLLOW* are separate. It's just like *EPHESIANS 2:8-10* where people get mixed up thinking it's their good works (vs 10) that have s/thing to do with salvation. They tie *FAITH* and *GOOD WORKS* together, yet the good works *FOLLOW* their faith, but they're not to be measured *WITH* their faith. Only in a small sense are they tied to each other. I cannot turn *TO* Christ for salvation unless I have turned *FROM* what I thought provided salvation. What we *THINK* about determines how we *FEEL* and how we *FEEL* determines how we *ACT* Either way... Your last statement where you state that Jesus doesn't want people to relax in their sin, sure...but here again, that has *NOTHING* to do with *REPENTANCE*

[@Sunshine-tg7yy]

Kman you’re not getting it but it’s ok . You’re the one who mixing things together . By definition repentance ( or what you call change of hearts) is turning around in this instance it’s turning your life around . This requires changes, changes we have to work on continuously... salvation is the gift of God after repentance not before.

[@Sunshine-tg7yy]

Kman repentance is not works . Works is what we do in Gods name to others (as for the Lord) 1 Corinthians 3 :13-14. Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work remains which he built on it, he will receive a reward.

[@esahutske]

Immediatley searched for more: More, please :)

[@aloe83]

First !

[@vanessamateo4310]

I have been a seventh day Adventist almost all my life... It's hard to know who's right

[@Hanndeezy]

Can'tBrainWashMe 1776 please please please do your research on SDA beliefs. Look up former Adventist fellowship on KZbin, google dale ratzlaff.

[@JesusIsreal72]

34: 20 seconds in.. Jesus said we (who are saved; Hallowed walking in His name) would do even greater things than He, by Him! -

[@OurHumbleLife]

He said that directly to his disciples.

[@tysonguess]

How does Apologia confirm that it teaches no false interpretation of scripture? What objective standard allows them to make this determination? (note: the interpretation of scripture is the question so appealing to your interpretation of scripture as evidence for your interpretation is circular reasoning and simply begs the question, 'how do you know your interpretation is the right one?')

[@oracleoftroy]

What happened to the other post asking this same question? Was that post deleted? Christians appeal to scripture to justify our interpretation of scripture. Note the key difference. We are not, as you put it, "appealing to your *interpretation* of scripture as evidence for your interpretation", but rather appealing to scripture itself, which is available to all to read for themselves and double check any claim or interpretation made about what it means. If you still find that circular, then I wonder how you would confirm your own interpretation of your comment? What objective standard do you use? You can't appeal to your comment to justify your interpretation, or you are being inconsistent. Show that you can solve this epistemological problem for yourself in a way that is infeasible for Christians regarding scripture. Note that you also can't just appeal you your own intent, since sometimes people make typos or forget words or accidentally change the meaning while editing. You have to be able to interpret the comment independently of your intent to know whether your words match your intent. And of course, by writing it, you are asking others to interpret your comment without the same intimate access to your thoughts as you have, so you expect your comment alone to be capable of being correctly interpreted. If you've ever had someone misinterpret something you wrote and asked them to re-read it, how can you complain if Christians make the same appeal towards scripture?

[@tysonguess]

"What happened to the other post asking this same question? Was that post deleted?" I deleted my original post because almost none (but not all) of the responses had anything to do with what I was asking, so I thank you for sticking to the topic. "Christians appeal to scripture to justify our interpretation of scripture. Note the key difference. We are not, as you put it, "appealing to your interpretation of scripture as evidence for your interpretation", but rather appealing to scripture itself" Right, I hear this quit alot. The problem with your point is that it simply isn't philosphically sound and is demonstrably false. Here is why: All appeals to scripture are appeals to interpretations of scripture. When one points to scripture, they are pointing to their interpretation of scripture (or the one they deem correct which is what I mean by 'their interpretation') Pointing to your interpretation of scripture to validate your interpretation of scripture is viciously circular reasoning and it begs the question, "How do you know your interpretation of scripture is the correct one?" and with dizzying circularity most answer with an appeal to their interpretation of scripture as evidence to support their interpretation of scripture (which doesn't actually demonstrate what they are saying). "If you still find that circular, then I wonder how you would confirm your own interpretation of your comment?" That's a good question. The answer is that I am a living witness as to what I mean. If someone is not sure of what I mean I can spend time with them and explain it to them. "You can't appeal to your comment to justify your interpretation, or you are being inconsistent." Of course not. I would appeal to my intention, because I would know my intention and explain how to properly understand what I said or wrote. "Note that you also can't just appeal you your own intent" If I can't know and explain my intent then who can? "...since sometimes people make typos or forget words or accidentally change the meaning while editing." Making an error in delivery of a message (such as spelling or punctuation) does not mean that I do not know my own intent. That would be a categorical confusion between the properties of mechanism (in this case the mode of delivery of the message) and Agency (which is the mind and intent of the person). The former does not dictate to the latter, but instead the latter dictates to the former. "If you've ever had someone misinterpret something you wrote and asked them to re-read it, how can you complain if Christians make the same appeal towards scripture?" Well, first i'm not complaining, I'm simply asking a question. But to answer your question, if someone misinterpreted my words, I personally wouldn't tell them to simply 're-read' it because it was the manner in which they read it that needs to be corrected. I would point out the error in how they understood my words because I can act as a living witness to what I actually mean As agents we can explain ourselves. So, the question still stands. Apologia is warning people to stay a way from false doctrine but in order to know what false doctrine is one would have to be able to know with certainty what doctrines are true. In order to achieve the latter (true doctrine) one would have to show that their interpretation of scripture is the correct one. Pointing to ones preferred interpretation only demonstrates their preference, not that their interpretation is objectively true. How does Apologia verify with certainty that the way they interpret scripture is the correct way to interpret it?

[@oracleoftroy]

_"Making an error in delivery of a message (such as spelling or punctuation) does not mean that I do not know my own intent. That would be a categorical confusion between the properties of mechanism (in this case the mode of delivery of the message) and Agency (which is the mind and intent of the person). The former does not dictate to the latter, but instead the latter dictates to the former."_ Yes, and I noticed you breezed right past the example to point this out, and yet you didn't address it. You admit that your intent in writing a comment and the actual comment might not be in agreement, as they are two different categories. The simplest example might be that you wish to communicate that you do not agree with X, but in the course of writing and editing, you actually write "I agree with X", forgetting the crucial "not" in the sentence. But you are able to divine the meaning of the comment independently of the intended meaning you wished communicated (to correct the error and add the 'not'). That is appealing to the comment itself to interpret its meaning, a meaning that is independent of (and in this example, opposite to) the intended one. Likewise, appealing to scripture for justifying an interpretation of scripture is just as valid. Just as you can re-read your comment and analyses it independently of how you want it interpreted (to correct for mistakes, etc), one can re-read a passage to double check that it matches their interpretation. And of course, one does not have to do this in a vacuum. You can have others read a text to see if they interpret it differently. Differences of interpretation can be argued for, the grammar, historical context, medium, intended audience, and other surrounding facts can be analyzed and an interpretation determined more or less likely. It sure it helpful to have the original author to communicate intended meaning, but it is not strictly necessary, nor always possible, for correctly interpreting what a text says. This is no different than any other discipline based on inductive reasoning. Of course, inductive reasoning is not deductively sound, and we can bring up Hume and his inductive skepticism and the various attempts to solve his dilemma. But in doing so, we would be far beyond merely critiquing textual criticism, but all of science and human experience. _"Apologia is warning people to stay a way from false doctrine but in order to know what false doctrine is one would have to be able to know with certainty what doctrines are true. In order to achieve the latter (true doctrine) one would have to show that their interpretation of scripture is the correct one. Pointing to ones preferred interpretation only demonstrates their preference, not that their interpretation is objectively true. How does Apologia verify with certainty that the way they interpret scripture is the correct way to interpret it?"_ Christians ultimately appeal to scripture as objectively true, not to their own interpretation. Any Christian should be willing to abandon their interpretation for another that better agrees with the text. For example, If you read a statement like the Westminster Confession, which seeks to present a correct interpretation of scripture, it puts the Bible above itself in authority. The Bible gives an "iron sharpens iron" principle: "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (Mind, we don't always follow through with that, egos and traditions might get in the way. But that's a problem with all human endeavors.) Moreover, it is important to recognize that Christians have a doctrine known as the perspicuity of Scripture. It recognizes that not everything is equally clearly taught, but that the most important things are made clear. As the Westminster Confession puts it: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." So, say I claimed your comment is saying that 2 + 3 = 17. Would that at all be a reasonable interpretation? How would you argue for or against such an interpretation? (Remember, you pointed out that it would be a category mistake to confuse the comment as it stands with the intent behind it. Your intent may or may not have been achieved in the writing of the comment.) I argue that someone appealing to you comment to refute such an absurd interpretation of your comment isn't circular. Similarly, if someone offered the interpretation that the Bible teaches that Jesus never existed, I would appeal to scripture to show that it is simply not the case. To wrap up the point, essential doctrines like those taught in the Apostles Creed are very plainly taught in scripture and you find widespread agreement among Christians on those primary issues, whereas secondary doctrines, like infant baptism, are less clear. And while there is quite a bit of disagreement and debate about the practice, in debating the lesser issue, that does not compromise or negate the clarity around the essentials of the faith that scripture presents. It would be an error to argue that because some particular areas are unclear, all of scripture is equally unclear.

[@tysonguess]

"You admit that your intent in writing a comment and the actual comment might not be in agreement, as they are two different categories." I don't agree with this at all. Whether my statement is effective in communicating my intent does not mean that my intent was different. Just because someone misunderstands what a sentence means doesn't also mean that that the sentence and its meaning are in conflict. "The simplest example might be that you wish to communicate that you do not agree with X, but in the course of writing and editing, you actually write "I agree with X", forgetting the crucial "not" in the sentence." Even if that were the case all I would have to do is make the correction and if necessary point it out if there was confusion. "But you are able to divine the meaning of the comment independently of the intended meaning you wished communicated (to correct the error and add the 'not'). That is appealing to the comment itself to interpret its meaning" False. That would be an appeal to my intent as to the purpose of the corrected grammer. You just tried to argue that the comment itself is the deciding factor as to my meaning and that ascribes agency to a sentnence when agency only belongs to an agent. "Likewise, appealing to scripture for justifying an interpretation of scripture is just as valid." Repeating this doesn't make your point true nor is it logically possible for your point to be true because all appeals to scripture are appeals to interpretations of scripture. If you're not appealing to an interpretation of scripture then what are you appealing to? If you're trying to say your interpretation is correct, then you are appealing to your interpretation. Yet, the problem remains. Appealing to your interpretation does not validate your interpretation as such commits the fallacy of begging the question (and the question that it begs is the one you are answering: How do you know your interpretation is correct? Because you believe your interpretation is correct. Well how do you know your interpretation is correct? Because you believe your interpretation is correct....etc) "Just as you can re-read your comment and analyses it independently of how you want it interpreted" Okay, here is a thought experiment: You walk into your office and your secretary left a note from me. The note reads: "I didn't say you stole money" There are 5 possible interpretations of this text. It could mean: *I* didn't say you stole money (but perhaps someone else did) I didn't *say* you stole money (but perhaps I thought it) I didn't say *you* stole money (but perhaps I said someone else did) I didn't say you *stole* money (but perhaps I said you borrowed it) I didn't say you stole *money* (but perhaps I said you stole something else) Which is correct? If you can divine the proper interpretation then explain to me which of these is correct and why: "Differences of interpretation can be argued for, the grammar, historical context" Context, itself, requires interpretation. So, if someone says, "I decided the correct interpretation by context", all they are really saying is, "I interprete the context in such a way that supports the interpretation I believe". Because context is dependent upon proper interpretation it still leaves us with the same question, "how do you know your interpretation is the correct one with absolute certainty?" Answering with 'context' is the same as answering with 'because my interpretatin is correct' (because context is dependent upon interpretation). Furthermore, no one agrees on what a contextual interpretation is anyhow. All one is doing here is appealing to their preference. "This is no different than any other discipline based on inductive reasoning." Inductive reasoning is based upon evidence by which we reason to the most likely conclusion but here, you are appealing to your interpretation, not evidence because your interpretation of scripture is not evidence for your interpretation of scripture. Yet, even then if I grant you this point, if Scriptural truth can only be arrived at by inductive measures then that means we can never, ever, ever know with certainty if something is objectively true for certain. The best we could get to is a good guess that seems right, but we could never know for sure. So, if that is the case, then it is logically impossible for any church to declare another interpretation as objectively false because they cannot determine which interpretations are objectively true with certainty. "Christians ultimately appeal to scripture as objectively true, not to their own interpretation." Sure, scripture is objectively true but you have not given me a way to objectively verify which interpretation is true. The best you can arrive at using this method is scriptural relativism, which seems to explain why there are thousands of denominations all of whom appeal to the bible, yet arrive at different meanings. "Any Christian should be willing to abandon their interpretation for another that better agrees with the text." Yet, this presupposes that one can discover the correct interpretation. That is the question. Appealing to scripture to interpret scripture is simply circular and doesn't answer the question. "For example, If you read a statement like the Westminster Confession, which seeks to present a correct interpretation of scripture, it puts the Bible above itself in authority." And how does the Westminster Confession determine which interpretations are objectively true? In my reading of it they don't give such instruction. I admit that it claims which one are true but they don't offer an objective manner by which one could confirm their claims. "Moreover, it is important to recognize that Christians have a doctrine known as the perspicuity of Scripture." Yet, if Scripture is really clear how do we explain the tens of thousands of denominations that all go by the bible alone and yet also preach contradictory interpretations of scripture? Why does Scripture itself say that it isn't always clear? *as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures (2 peter ****3:16****)* "It recognizes that not everything is equally clearly taught, but that the most important things are made clear." Really? Because I see that we are all divided on the basics. Christians disagree on salvation, sanctification, baptism, interpretaion of scripture....just to name a few. Those aren't outlier beliefs. Those are the heart and soul of Christianity. "As the Westminster Confession puts it: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." Well, how does the authors of the Westminster Confession explain that the longer time goes on, the more various interpretation of scripture are discovered leading to more denominations? "So, say I claimed your comment is saying that 2 + 3 = 17. Would that at all be a reasonable interpretation?" The laws of mathematics operate as an objective standard by which we can determine the answer to this proposition and I ask you the same. To what objective standard does apologia appeal to that allows them to say with certainty that their interpretations are objectively true, with the same level of certainty that the laws of mathematics allow us to answer your proposition in quotes? "I argue that someone appealing to you comment to refute such an absurd interpretation of your comment isn't circular." Well, if they appeal to an interpretation of my words that didn't line up with what I actually meant then I would first have to correct them and then they would have to revise their position based on that. In that instance, I act as an objective source by which the correct interpretation can be determined. What is Apologias (or the Westminster's Confession)? "Similarly, if someone offered the interpretation that the Bible teaches that Jesus never existed, I would appeal to scripture to show that it is simply not the case." You would be deadlocked because each of you would be appealing to your interpretations which were based on your presuppositions. To demonstrate that a presupposition is false one would need to be able to definitively show that their presupposition was false. Now, in this case as it is regarding the existence of a historical figure, if you bring into the discussion outside sources that corroborate your claims, then you could formulate a logical proof in your favor demonstrating the rationality of belief in the existence of Jesus. But that brings us back to the original question regarding interpretation. What objective standard does Apologia use to determine the correct interpretation of Scripture? "essential doctrines like those taught in the Apostles Creed are very plainly taught in scripture" Really? Where does Scripture teach that God is triune? The best you can do is pointing to "baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" ...but that could be interpreted as the Arians did. Are you aware of what the church appealed to in order to solve the Arian heresy? It wasn't Scripture. "and you find widespread agreement among Christians on those primary issues" Really? I had a reformed christian tell me that repentance was unnecessary, all I had to do was believe because if I had to do anything at all then I would be taking away from the work of Christ.

[@tysonguess]

Essentially, all I see that you are saying is what most Christians say, in that, they believe their interpretation is correct, but aren't able to give an objective manner by which we can confirm that claim. Without that objective measure we are left with scriptural relativism and if that is what we are left with, then it is logically impossible to call another doctrine objectively false. So, Apologia would then believe their doctrines because they believe their doctrines....and that is simply circular.

[@vanessamateo4310]

I know God is the way.. But referring to church worship idk

[@Gnorde]

Billy Graham put on HUGE shows.... was he faking it? My point is test someone by what they say not the size of the crowd or what tools they use for outreach. To assume that if a pastor preaches to a huge crowd means something wrong is happening is placing God in a very small box.

[@Tigerex966]

definitely let the spirit give you discernment, satan knows the bible and many of his false teachers as good as anyone, and often preach 99% truth and only 1% lie, and in Grahams case it may be old age, but during his older years he said things that go totally against the word of God, and never to the best of my knowledge apologized, we are to judge them by their fruits, their actions, words, who they associate with, but most of all if they are inline with the word of God or not. Satan knows to tell truth first and lots of it, than sneak a big lie in there unnoticed.

[@travisanderson3920]

Right! Jesus drew big crowds!

[@biomechanicalclone]

I'm having difficulty understanding the doctrine on Apologia's webpage. Calvinists believe God’s control predestined everything which occurs, including evil. As such, Calvinists also believe that Jesus died only for the sins of only the elect individuals who were predestined for salvation. Calvinists believe that sinners are spiritually dead in their trespasses in sins and are unable to change their ways to seek salvation, but that all live within accordance to God’s plan. That leaves Calvinists with no role in changing God’s will. How, then, is evangelism not a contradiction? Why would God call upon Calvinists to attempt to change anyone’s preordained ways? If they are not God’s elect, they never shall be. Is evangelism merely passing judgment by behavioral policing of those who are fulfilling their roles in God's plan?

[@johntrevett2944]

Calvinist Dictionary All: The elect. Everyone: The elect. Kosmos: Greek word that means “The elect”. Whosoever: The elect. World: The elect.

[@Hanndeezy]

Please include Seventh Day Adventists in your group of pseudo Christians to call out of false doctrine.

[@johntalmid1563]

And of Herod sir. How can you even know what the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadusees is if you're not aware of their teachings? By the way Messiah teaches us the leaven of the Kingdom of you have ears to hear. It has everything to do with what Faith is and were we get it from, as well as what it calls us to do. Summed up in one word it is "Shemah" to hear, obey, and then understand. What a faithless generation we live in, where men teach man's doctrine as the commandment of Elohim. It is true that the Pharisees made a convert that much more ready and bound for hell. So do many teachers in the "godspell". Heaven have mercy on those disobedient people who have rejected truth for doctrine of demons and men.

[@johntalmid1563]

P. S. Your "hypocrisy" definition sounds a LOT like Christianity to me. May Messiah reveal the truth and source of all life.

[@Tigerex966]

well said

[@manseth3]

2nd

[@Tigerex966]

4th. You mean false doctrine like the TULIP Doctrine of Calvanism, which is another Gospel, not preached by Paul, the apostles, and Jesus?

[@ApologiaStudios]

Tigerex966 *Calvinism If you can’t spell it correctly you probably don’t have any business making that kind of judgment. You just demonstrated that you are utterly unfamiliar with the subject and haven’t spent the time trying to understand what we are saying. Because you haven’t even spent enough time becoming familiar with the way it is spelled. To be honest: we don’t have any respect for someone’s argument when their standards are that deplorably low. We wish you the best.

[@cornelius_acts1036]

TULIP equals the doctrines of God's sovereign Grace. These doctrines are revealed from Genesis to Revelation. They are literally an overarching subject of the Bible. I recommend you to read: (1) Gen 45 (2) Is 10 (3) Mt 11, 25-30 (4) complete Gospel acc. to John (5) Rom 8 & 9 (6) Eph 1-3 This is only a short list. But I think that these passages of Scripture will demonstrate you what is meant by the doctrines of Grace (or alternatively TULIP or "Calvinism") God bless!

[@Tigerex966]

Nice insult at the beginning of your reply, very slick. And sets the tone of your spirit and following reply. You say I cannot make a judgement based on a misspelled word, ok. With that reasoning, your judgement of me leaves a lot to be desired, as everyone including spell checkers misspell words, so I think I will leave a few more for you to judge my judgement ability. You are anything but honest, it is not the spelling you have a problem with, as you can find many more in your comment section just as bad, maybe your own, if you checked. And than you at the end, you do not wish me the best, it is just said by you, to dismiss my entire comment, because it hits close to home and you are afraid to touch it. And unlike you I do wish the best. May God open your eyes, in his own time, through his holy spirit, on the false doctrine of CalVANism and the TULIP doctrine. Anyway, according to that false Calvanism doctrine, I have to do what I am doing, and so do you, we have no free will, no choice, as God ordains and forces us to heaven or hell, before we are even born. And obviously you undertood Calvanism Put it in your spell checker you might be surprised. My spell checkers fault even it knows it is false doctrine when it see it.. God, not CalVAN bless you and take care and have a good day.

[@marcelobarahona4573]

I'm actually impressed by their response..

[@Tigerex966]

It is an additional doctrine to what Paul and the apostles taught, it is another gospel, and therefore a false Gospel, with another God and another Jesus. Two interesting videos on the God of Calvanism and it's false TULIP Doctrine, It is an other Gospel. Now that does not meant that all Calvinist are unsaved, as there are many different points, or levels of belief of Augustine's Doctrine and His Disciple John Calvin's doctrine. And if they truly believe and have made the Lord Jesus Christ their Lord and savior they are saved, so do not put words in my mouth, it only means that their Doctrine of the TULIP and the nature of God is false. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqWvhaZmptl7n9k kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKq9mGmqeKdoqbc Thanks for watching.

[@DoggyDogYT]

3rd

[@carlospadron488]

JEFF AND HIS LOT PREACH ANOTHER GOSPEL! BEWARE!...NO MATTER WHAT GOOD WORKS THEY DO.. THEY DON'T DO IT FOR THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.