False Doctrine

[Solo]

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

False Doctrine

A. Question #1.: What constitutes false doctrine?

False doctrine is caused mainly by two things:

a.) by a perversion of the gospel:

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." - Galatians 1:6-9.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. " - 1 John 4:1-6.

b.) by satanic deception:

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" - 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.

B. Question #2: What does the Word instruct concerning the characteristics of false teachers?

Teachers of false doctrine will mislead many:

"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." - 2 Peter 2:2.

They are savage:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." - Acts 20:29.

They seek their own disciples

"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." - Acts 20:30.

They do not understand grace:

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." - Jude 4.

Teachers of false doctrine are conceited, placed above the brethren:

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings," - 1 Timothy 6:3-4.

The teacher of false doctrine will love error and teach fables:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
2 Timothy 4:3-4.

"fables" is "muthos" in the Greek meaning a falsehood or prediction that does not come to fruition. These are people claiming "special knowledge" as we see the root is from the Greek "mueo" defined by Strong as: "to initiate into the mysteries; to teach fully, instruct; to accustom one to a thing to give one an intimate acquaintance with a thing".

Its word origin is from the base of #3466 - "Musterion" which Strong defines: " hidden thing, secret, mystery; generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to ordinary mortals; a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the; understanding; a hidden purpose or counsel; secret will; of men."

You see, many who bring false doctrine claim to be righteous and observe the secret counsels of God which are hidden from unsaved mankind ---- how much more can be further from the truth!

A. Question #3.: What should true child of God's Christian attitude be toward those who continue to go on bringing false doctrine?

Christians are to detest them:

"These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." - Jude 19-25

God through the Inspired Paul, in the closing verses of the book of Romans, most importantly teaches His children to avoid purveyors of false doctrine; to Christ be the glory! Amen.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." - Romans 16:17-20

.
Article retrieved from Quiet Earth Fellowservants of Christ

 

[Georges]

Solo...thanks for the large type...I can see the screen without my glasses...

Here is what is wrong with your whole theolgy.

You are using Paul to test and prove the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles....and it shoud be the other way around....

Just like a good Berean, you should be using the Torah, The Prophets, Jesus, James and John to prove Paul correct....you have it backwards..

You are using the verses of an "alledged (for the mods)" false prophet as the guideline for exposing false doctrine? Bizarro world....

Solo, who do you think Jude (the brother of James) was writing about...hint....name starts with P and ends with "aul"(allegedly, for the mods).

I put the challenge to you to let me send you the pdf that proves convincingly what I've presented....quit dragging your feet and give me the permission...at least read it to prove me wrong....I will extend the same challenge to you personally as I did to Unredtypo...if you will read the pdf (honestly), I will quit hounding Paul and go back to the prophecy forum...

 

[Solo]

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. 2 Peter 3:11-18

The devil doesn't care too much for Paul's epistles and neither do his children.

 

[Solo]

False Doctrine of Arianism

Arianism

Arianism developed around 320, in Alexandria Egypt concerning the person of Christ and is named after Arius of Alexandar. For his doctrinal teaching he was exiled to Illyria in 325 after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea condemned his teaching as heresy. It was the greatest of heresies within the early church that developed a significant following. Some say, it almost took over the church.
Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.
At Jesus' incarnation, the Arians asserted that the divine quality of the Son, the Logos, took the place of the human and spiritual aspect of Jesus, thereby denying the full and complete incarnation of God the Son, second person of the Trinity.
In asserting that Christ the Son, as a created thing, was to be worshipped, the Arians were advocating idolatry.


Retrieved from http://www.carm.org/heresy/arianism.htm

Arianism - An Early Heresy

by E. A. Green

Arius began as a rigorist in Egypt and spent much time in Alexandria, the home of a theology that stressed the deity of Christ. This fact alone does not make him a typical Alexandrian because He studied in Antioch under Lucian who maintained a private academy of his own.

Lucian of Antioch --- Arius’ Teacher:

Lucian followed in the tradition of Paul of Samosata (see article on Monarchianism), but represented an advance over the adoptionist view that Jesus was a mere man supernaturally endowed with the Holy Spirit. He believed that there was a Logos, or personal divine power, created by the Father, that became incarnate in Jesus. Lucian thus sought to integrate the concept of the Logos, into the monarchian insistence that only the Father is fully and truly God. He saw the Logos as a kind of intermediate, created spiritual being between God and man. Essentially, Lucian taught this idea to Arius, whose rallying cry became the assertion that the Logos, i.e. the Son, is a created being-- higher than any other, but different in essence from the Father. Although Lucian and Arius seemed to be interested primarily in the nature of Christ, the Arian controversy is called Trinitarian, not Christological, because the point at issue was the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Arius did not in fact have a true Trinity. The later controversies that are called Christological did not deal with the relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity, but with the relationship between the deity and humanity of Christ. [HERESIES; pg. 107]

The central theme of Lucian’s Christology that was to stamp it as heretical was his assertion that the Logos was created “out of that which is not.†Although Lucian considered the Logos, or Son, to be the highest spiritual being beneath the Father, by stating that the Logos was created, Lucian placed him together with all other created beings in contradistinction to God. Lucian held that the Logos took upon himself a human body, but not a soul; in other words, according to later standards, Lucian’s Jesus was not only not fully God, he also was not fully man. [HERESIES; pg. 111]

Arianism differs from the adoptionism of Paul of Samosata in that while Paul’s view was essentially a simple one, Arianism is as abstract and complex as orthodox Christology. Confronted with the idea that the Son is eternally begotten, Paul countered with the simplification “No, Jesus was adopted by the Father at his baptism.†Arius, by contrast, denied that the Son is eternally begotten, but admitted him to be first-begotten of the Father and preexistent. This is hardly a simplification of the orthodox position. [HERESIES; pg. 105]

Arianism must be seen as a doctrinal innovation, coming as it does at a time when traditional doctrines had been fairly well set forth. No one had ventured to teach what Arius was now proclaiming: that the Logos is radically distinct from the Father, of a different substance. Modalists taught that the Logos is identical to the Father, adoptionists dispensed with the Logos altogether. But to the extent that a Logos was taught at all, no one before Lucian of Antioch and Arius had contended that the Logos is categorically different. [HERESIES; pg. 116]

Athanasius--- Opponent of Arianism:

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, is known as the most consistent opponent of Arianism. Harold O. J. Brown cites an interesting quote from Harnack:

“Athanasius has exposed the internal difficulties and contradictions [of Arianism], and we can agree with him almost everywhere. A Son who is no Son, a Logos who is no Logos, a monotheism that does not exclude polytheism, two or three essences to be worshipped, although only one is really distinct from that of the creatures, an indefinable being that becomes God only in that it becomes man, and that is neither God nor man, ect.†[HERESIES; pg. 116]

The controversy with Arianism continued over fifty years. In the early phase of the controversy the emphasis of Athanasius was on the desire to affirm the full deity of Christ while safeguarding monotheism. This deity would be lost if Christ were acknowledged to be a creature; hence, Arianism had to be rejected. But the formula, “sameness of essenceâ€Â, did not safeguard the distinction of the Persons. Athanasius soon begin to suspicion the view of his ally Marcellus, who reverted to an older, economic interpretation of the Trinity and denied the existence of distinct Persons in the godhead. In his later writings, Marcellus developed the “sameness of essence†position in such a way that it really did sound like Sabellian modalism. [HERESIES; pg. 121]

Divergent Views Among Allies-- Athanasius & Marcellus:

Marcellus taught that the Logos is God’s preexistent dynamis, “power,†which did not really become personal until the incarnation. Marcellus called only the incarnate Christ the Son of God; he did not acknowledge a preincarnate, personal Son. The Logos preexists and is in fact eternal, but is not personal until the incarnation. Thus Marcellus effectively denied the preexistence of Christ. Athanasius had reservations about Marcellus’ views, but he was so interested in affirming the “sameness of essence†against the Arians that he ignored the need to protect the formula against being interpreted in a modalist sense by his partisan Marcellus. [HERESIES; pg. 121]

Attempts to explain how the three can be only one God usually fall into one of two errors; either the unity of nature is emphasized, and modalism results, or the deity of each Person is stressed, in which case the danger is a kind of tritheism. Arianism represented the latter error in that it is a bridge between polytheism and monotheism, but it was neither the worship of the one God of Scripture nor was it true Christianity. It did facilitate the “conversion†of countless pagans during the early decades of the Constantinian era, for it sharply reduced the clash between Christianity, interpreted in an Arian way, and pagan philosophical monotheism. [HERESIES; pg. 116]

The adoption of the Nicene Creed in 325 and the Chalcedonian Creed in 451 stabilized the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ for over one thousand years. They made use of Hellenistic categories and thinking to do so. The important question to ask is not whether orthodox theology betrays Hellenistic influence. Nothing else was possible in the cultural climate of the time. The important question is whether this orthodoxy represents a proper and correct interpretation of New Testament Christology or whether it seriously distorts it. The rise and spread of Arianism in the fourth century made it plain that the early rule of faith, the Apostles’ Creed, was not sufficiently explicit about the relationship of the Son to the Father. If we are unwilling to accept the Nicene Creed because we find it too Hellenistic, we should not be surprised to fall once again into mistakes of the kind that the newer creed was intended to prevent. [HERESIES; pg. 105]

Retrieved from http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/arian.html


Arius (c.260 - 336)
& Arianism

Synopsis

ARIUS () one of the most famous heretics; b. about 256, in Libya (according to others, in Alexandria); d. 336, at Constantinople. He was educated by Lucian, presbyter in Antioch, and held a prominent position as presbyter in the Church of Alexandria when the Arian controversy with Bishop Alexander began (about 318) concerning the eternal deity of Christ and his equality with the Father (homoousia), which he denied, holding that Christ was of a different essence, and a creature of the Father, though created before the world. He is described as a tall, lean man, with a downcast brow, very austere habits, considerable learning, and a smooth, winning address, but quarrelsome disposition. The Silence of his enemies conclusively proves that his general moral character was irreproachable (like that of Nestorius and Pelagius); and, if it had not been for his heresy, he would have been highly esteemed. His enemies said that the real cause of his opposition to Alexander was a personal grudge, because he was not himself elected bishop; but the subordination views which he had imbibed in the Antiochian school are sufficient to explain the direction of his development and the course of his life. Condemned by the synod of Alexandria (320), he left the city; but he was kindly received both by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, and it was evident that not a few of the Asiatic churches favored his ideas. A reconciliation was brought about between him and Alexander; but hardly had he returned to Alexandria before the strife broke out again, and with still greater violence. A letter from Constantine, addressed to Alexander and Arius, and carried to Alexandria by Hosius of Cordova, availed nothing: the whole Christian world rang with the contest. But, in spite of his many and powerful friends, Arius was defeated at the Council of Nicaea (325), and banished to Illyria. Soon, however, a reaction in his favor set in. The Eusebian party espoused his cause more openly, and through Constantia, the sister of the emperor, he got access to the court. He was formally recalled from banishment; and all the chiefs of the Eusebian party were assembled in Constantinople to receive him back into the bosom of the church, when he suddenly died the day before the solemnity (336), at the age of over eighty years, at a time and in a manner that seemed to the orthodox party to be a direct interposition of Providence, and a condemnation of his doctrine; while his friends attributed the death to poison. Athanasius relates the fact in a letter to Serapion, on the authority of a priest, Macarius of Constantinople (De Morte Arii, Opera, ed. Bened. torn. I., pp. 1., 340), and ventures to interpret Providence in the uncharitable style of his age, yet not without some reluctance of his better Christian feeling Epiphanius (Haer. 68, c. 7) compares his death to that of Judas the traitor. Socrates (Hist. Eccl. I., 38) gives the following account: "Going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, Arius paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. On approaching the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror, arising from the consciousness of his wickedness, seized him, accompanied by a violent relaxation of the bowels. He therefore inquired whether there was a convenient place near, and, being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after, a faintness came over him, and, together with the evacuations, his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines. More over, portions of his spleen and liver were carried off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died." Sozomen (H. E., II., 30) gives a similar account, and adds, that, for a long period, everybody avoided with horror the spot on which Arias died, until a rich Arian bought the place of the public, and built a house on the site, that there might be no perpetual memorial of his death.

His principal work, called ... The Banquet, which he wrote during his stay with Eusebius at Nicomedia, was a defence of his doctrine in an entertaining popular form, half poetry, half prose; but, with the exception of a few frag ments in the tracts of Athanasius, it is lost. A letter of his to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and one to Alexander of Alexandria, are still extant. (See Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr., VIII., p. 309.) His doctrine on the divinity of Christ and his rela tion to the Father has given him a notoriety far outstripping his talents and learning. Nean der (Ch. H., IV., 685) ascribes to him an acute but contracted intellect without the intuitive faculty.

Retrieved from http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism.php

 

[Drew]

A. Question #3.: What should true child of God's Christian attitude be toward those who continue to go on bringing false doctrine?

Christians are to detest them:

"These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." - Jude 19-25

Where in the above text does it say that we are to "detest" certain people? I admit that I am not sure that I know what the "garment" is. However, the sentence in which it appears seems to draw a strong distinction between the garment (which is to be hated) and the person who is to be saved.

I think the notion that we are to detest anybody clearly contradicts Jesus' teaching in the sermon on the mount:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven".

 

[thessalonian]

Are you certain that you have none?

 

[Drew]

Are you certain that you have none?

Hi Thess:

To whom is this question directed and what does the "none" refer to - none what?

 

[thessalonian]

It is a general question I suppose. I've never met anyone who KNEW they had false doctrine.

 

[Drew]

It is a general question I suppose. I've never met anyone who KNEW they had false doctrine.

This is a very good point. It is highly unlikely that those who rail against heresy do not themselves hold ideas that are, in point of fact, heretical. A little humility in this respect is appropriate for all of us. I have changed my mind about a number of doctrines as I have grown - its called learning. I will no doubt continue to refine my understanding of Christian theology.

 

[unred typo]

Thessalonian wrote:It is a general question I suppose. I've never met anyone who KNEW they had false doctrine.

A minister once told my brother that he didn’t really believe something he had just preached but only said it to keep certain people in his congregation happy. I doubt if he is alone in his ear tickling occupation, but probably most are devious enough to not admit it.

 

[thessalonian]

Thessalonian wrote:It is a general question I suppose. I've never met anyone who KNEW they had false doctrine.

A minister once told my brother that he didn’t really believe something he had just preached but only said it to keep certain people in his congregation happy. I doubt if he is alone in his ear tickling occupation, but probably most are devious enough to not admit it.

I don't doudt that for a minute. Interestingly enough however, that doesn't make what he truly believes correct either. My point stands.

 

[unred typo]

Drew wrote:This is a very good point. It is highly unlikely that those who rail against heresy do not themselves hold ideas that are, in point of fact, heretical. A little humility in this respect is appropriate for all of us. I have changed my mind about a number of doctrines as I have grown - its called learning. I will no doubt continue to refine my understanding of Christian theology.

There are some who profess something to be true that they don‘t believe enough to live by. Jesus called them hypocrites. I agree with what you’re saying, though. No sincere person is going to honestly preach something they know is heretical but no one knows everything there is to know. The humility check is a very good idea. There seems to be a certain pride involved with knowing doctrines more ‘perfectly’ than others.

 

[jgredline]

Solo
gREAT post and as always timley.
Thanks Jg

 

[Georges]

Solo
gREAT post and as always timley.
Thanks Jg

Yeh....really good.....how come I didn't get a "Great Post" after mine....

let me repeat it.....

Solo...thanks for the large type...I can see the screen without my glasses...

Here is what is wrong with your whole theolgy.

You are using Paul to test and prove the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles....and it shoud be the other way around....

Just like a good Berean, you should be using the Torah, The Prophets, Jesus, James and John to prove Paul correct....you have it backwards..

You are using the verses of an "alledged (for the mods)" false prophet as the guideline for exposing false doctrine? Bizarro world....

Solo, who do you think Jude (the brother of James) was writing about...hint....name starts with P and ends with "aul"(allegedly, for the mods).

I put the challenge to you to let me send you the pdf that proves convincingly what I've presented....quit dragging your feet and give me the permission...at least read it to prove me wrong....I will extend the same challenge to you personally as I did to Unredtypo...if you will read the pdf (honestly), I will quit hounding Paul and go back to the prophecy forum...

J...same friendly challenge to you....

 

[lovely]

To everyone...

Are false doctrine, and the spirit of the antichrist one in the same?

The reason I ask, is because I thought false doctrine can still contain the Gospel to some degree, while the spirit of the antichrist preaches another Gospel altogether.

The Lord bless you

 

[JustifiedByFaith]

Solo...thanks for the large type...I can see the screen without my glasses...

Here is what is wrong with your whole theolgy.

You are using Paul to test and prove the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles....and it shoud be the other way around....

Just like a good Berean, you should be using the Torah, The Prophets, Jesus, James and John to prove Paul correct....you have it backwards..

You are using the verses of an "alledged (for the mods)" false prophet as the guideline for exposing false doctrine? Bizarro world....

Solo, who do you think Jude (the brother of James) was writing about...hint....name starts with P and ends with "aul"(allegedly, for the mods).

I put the challenge to you to let me send you the pdf that proves convincingly what I've presented....quit dragging your feet and give me the permission...at least read it to prove me wrong....I will extend the same challenge to you personally as I did to Unredtypo...if you will read the pdf (honestly), I will quit hounding Paul and go back to the prophecy forum...

Dear Georges,

Actually, Paul, Jesus and the other 40+- Authors are of the same spirit. There is unity. There is no need for one to prove or dis-prove the other?
The same spirit dwells in all of them. Every word of God is pure.

Paul has authored most of the New Testament. He has Peter and James blessings and they also gave him full endorsement to preach to the Gentiles. Jesus gave Him that unique ministry.

I hope I didn't mis-understand your post Georges? The authors of the bible are in agreement or it would not be inspired by God? If I did misunderstand you, I stand corrected.

Jesus said, "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him or knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you."

John 14:16-17

 

[thessalonian]

Lovely,

It is not satan's method usually to present us with something totally false. Truth mixed with error as can be seen in his words to eve in the garden is his most likely tactic. If you look at the religions of man they all contain some truth.

 

[Georges]

Solo...thanks for the large type...I can see the screen without my glasses...

Here is what is wrong with your whole theolgy.

You are using Paul to test and prove the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles....and it shoud be the other way around....

Just like a good Berean, you should be using the Torah, The Prophets, Jesus, James and John to prove Paul correct....you have it backwards..

You are using the verses of an "alledged (for the mods)" false prophet as the guideline for exposing false doctrine? Bizarro world....

Solo, who do you think Jude (the brother of James) was writing about...hint....name starts with P and ends with "aul"(allegedly, for the mods).

I put the challenge to you to let me send you the pdf that proves convincingly what I've presented....quit dragging your feet and give me the permission...at least read it to prove me wrong....I will extend the same challenge to you personally as I did to Unredtypo...if you will read the pdf (honestly), I will quit hounding Paul and go back to the prophecy forum...

Dear Georges,

Actually, Paul, Jesus and the other 40+- Authors are of the same spirit. There is unity.

Not really....They really differ on many things...especially Torah observence.

There is no need for one to prove or dis-prove the other?

Yeh....there really is...if the group is teaching continued Torah observence and one of them does not, then something stinks in the realm.

The same spirit dwells in all of them.

I think that can be proven differently....as those who have been reading the pdf are finding out...

Every word of God is pure.

Truly said....now, what is God's word and what isn't....

Paul has authored most of the New Testament.

He has Peter and James blessings and they also gave him full endorsement to preach to the Gentiles.

So he says...but it can be proven otherwise...

Jesus gave Him that unique ministry.

So say Paul....and it's uncorroborated.

I hope I didn't mis-understand your post Georges?

You didn't....

The authors of the bible are in agreement or it would not be inspired by God?

The OT is inspired....the Gospels, I believe, John, James, Jude and 1st Peter.

If I did misunderstand you, I stand corrected.

You understood me, we've had this debate very often on the forum...I see by the number of posts, you are a relative new comer..

Jesus said, "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him or knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you."

John 14:16-17

 

[Oscar3]

Georges
I see you'r still at it ha. Trying to defend your heretical views.
May I suggest to you a study in Romans.

 

[Solo]

Georges teachings fall right in line with the OP as false doctrine. Study the article carefully, and compare with Georges false teachings.