Exposing False Dectrine

[JohnDeereFan]

I "should" know this answer, but any more I never know what to think about whom .

What do you think of a pastor who will not expose/warn about false doctrine, in view of God's Word?

Hard to say. That's not much information to go on.

It would be helpful to know what the false doctrines are and why he doesn't talk about them.

Is it a case where he's actually promoting false doctrine? Or is he just not addressing it? Or could he be addressing it in a way you're not aware of?

Is he even aware that there's an issue with false doctrine in the church?

If I don't know something for sure, especially if a preacher is solid in other areas, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there's something I don't know.

If this is really an issue for you, then I would go to him, humbly, and say, "Hey, there's a doctrinal issue going on that I'm a little concerned about and I was wondering if you were aware of it".

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I would suggest all of them: As the gospel becomes an integral part of our hearts, our heads, our hands, and our habits, the truth will be like a city set on a hill. It is amazing how error, deception, and heresy cannot thrive in the light of the Word.

They say the best defense is a good offense.

While false doctrines in the church must be addressed, doing nothing but warning against false doctrines would take away from the other areas that should be addressed.

So wouldn't the best idea be to address those that threaten the life of the church directly and then spend the rest of the time teaching sound doctrine so that members will be able to recognize and defeat false doctrines?

 

[sag38]

"I'm gonna go back and debate with the RCCs folks. I already KNOW most of them are LOST, but maybe I can offer something that will help."

What have you offered worthy of debate. You refuse to offer any substance to your post and when questioned you call into doubt the salvation of other posters (which, by the way, is against the rules), offer insults, and play the victim. You are not interested in debate or conversation. You just want to stand on your soap box and rail again who knows what.

 

[Zenas]

Like I said, a false doctrine is one that is false; one that you can't support with God's word.

Could you give us one or two examples of false doctrines that came up in the two SBC churches that you left?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Most folks here are a bit wary when faced with as possibly open ended of a question as you posited in your OP. So, their asking for a definition as to what you define as "false" doctrine is understandable. It took you until post 18 to give us any idea of what you were talking about.
As this forum's moderator, I highly recommend you lower the temperature of your rhetoric.

Isn't that what I was asking about to start with?

No one has been interested in anything Godly that I can see.

Preacher for the truth? Doesn't seem that anyone is interested in seeking the truth. They seem to be more interested in running folks down.

Sure not like Christians I would want to associate with in any capacity.

I know there are jokers on all lists, even so-called Christian lists, who are only on there for the fun of it or because they have nothing better to do, so maybe that's what I have run into here.

I know that satan is right in the middle of it, that's for sure! Isn't he always there for for his own benefit? Laughing under his breath!!

God Bless

 

[preacher4truth]

If jim would offer up some specific false doctrines, perhaps many of us here would stand against those teachings.

Here's my first response to the OP (met with some fire though):

There is an ABUNDANCE of false teachers out there, hence that is why the crowd who hates Christ, sound doctrine, and those who stand for sound doctrine, can HEAP to themselves such to scratch their heresy loving ears.

That said, I don't think we need to hear about false doctrine constantly. We should temper that with Hebrews 5:12ff:

Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,

Heb 5:13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.

Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Let's start back there. See jim, I agree about false doctrine. I also agree Christians should be able to discern this themselves.

Now, you said address it 'when it comes up'. So when and how does it come up in the church as to when your preacher should just automatically preach against it? You said they should preach against it when it comes up -- so elaborate on how that happens.

 

[Rippon]

What do they have to do with the price of tea in China?

In my neck-a-the-woods it's less than 1RMB per cup!

 

[Rippon]

I think we have all strayed away from the OP. It's about exposing false Dectrine. And all along we thought dj was speaking about false doctrine! I wanna hear more about false dectrine.

A little levity here folks...Tough crowd.

 

[desertjim]

Is it a case where he's actually promoting false doctrine? Or is he just not addressing it? Or could he be addressing it in a way you're not aware of?

First, let me thank you for your Godly reply. I appreciate it.

Now allow me to say I didn't say he wouldn't address false doctrines, I believe I said he wouldn't condemn false doctrines. The issue came up in a SS class he was teaching. He said it wasn't our place to condemn false doctrines.

Is he even aware that there's an issue with false doctrine in the church?

There isn't such an issue in the church, although some of his friends were JWs and had just accepted Christ. The discussion wasn't about JWs, but about FALSE DOCTRINES.

If I don't know something for sure, especially if a preacher is solid in other areas, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there's something I don't know.

Pray tell what else you should know? I submit that one need not know anything about a pastor who will not condemn false doctrines PERIOD.

If this is really an issue for you, then I would go to him, humbly, and say, "Hey, there's a doctrinal issue going on that I'm a little concerned about and I was wondering if you were aware of it".

Brother, I'm not a baby Christian. I'm a student of God's word. While I don't consider myself to have arrived by no stretch of the imagination, I've been blessed to have had the privilege of teaching God's word for many years.

So, of course, I went to him. I considered him a friend, and I still do. I agreed with him on almost all issues, but I considered this a MAJOR issue and I knew it was not good for him and I, leaders in the church, to be at odds on such an issue. It would NOT be edifying for the Church, for the both of us, and, most of all, it would not be honoring God.

I outlined my position, using God's word. His reply was simply, "I disagree" and we parted company....on good terms.

We disagreed on the version issue, but while I certainly prefer the KJV, I didn't make that an issue, nor did I make an issue of him taking the church we started to the SBC, although I did mention my preference to stay out of it.

He was very critical of the pastor of the church he had left where he was the associate pastor. Although I agreed, I felt that he had no good reason to condemn anything the other pastor had said when he himself was as much ecumenical as the other pastor PLUS he would NOT condemn false teachers. Thankfully, it only took me a year to determine just where he was coming from.

This pastor had already compromised his true belief by allowing a non-member to teach SS. It's a long story, but suffice it to say that the teacher was a friend and we were renting his building until we could get one of our own. I let my objection be know, again in a Godly manner, and the pastor started his own SS class which I attended. And that is the class where ultimately the issue of false doctrines came up.

I mentioned that I had left another church over the same such issue. The pastor, from the pulpit, was telling the congregation how he had been organizing the RCCs and Anglicans in a joint effort. Enough said?

I'm a die-hard conservative, fundamentalist, who believes the Bible is the word of God and that it is the only source for my faith and practice.

I thought I was getting involved here with like-minded folks. Apparently, I was wrong, and will be leaving the list shortly. Just didn't want a couple jokers to run me off............just in case the core of this group is as advertised .

I do know full well that God will lead us through a lot of hard roads to get us where he wants us......including my trip to this group. And my road has been tough for a while, but it appears to be lightening up, thankfully.

God Bless!

 

[HankD]

I'm no prophet but after reading through this thread (but not every post) the "false doctrine" being declared but not detailed probably has to do with separation (first degree, second degree, etc...) and ecumenism, etc.

Am I at least partially correct desertjim?

HankD

 

[desertjim]

I'm no prophet but after reading through this thread (but not every post) the "false doctrine" being declared but not detailed probably has to do with separation (first degree, second degree, etc...) and ecumenism, etc.

Am I at least partially correct desertjim?

HankD

Sorry, Hank, you missed the entire nail :laugh:.

While "doctrine" is "teaching", I believe that "False Doctrine" involves the teaching on salvation. Just goes to show how we can fail to communicate doesn't it? False teaching could be that you must worship on Saturday, but that isn't a salvation issue. Usually, where you find false teachings like that, you will also find doctrinal error on salvation, tho. We can split hairs here, I suppose, where these terms are concerned. I consider teachings on things other than a salvation issue as "practices", but I suppose, technically, they could be considered "doctrines".

That women should dress modestly isn't a doctrinal issue where I am concerned, but it certainly is an issue of "practice", and if one wants, he can toss it into "doctrine".

So................no, the issue had nothing to do with long dresses and separation, although I believe one can make a Biblical case for both, for sure.

God Bless

 

[evangelist6589]

good question, as one Christians "false doctrines" any times is just another preferences/convictions!

He probably is harping on the SBC church because they allowed Contemporary worship, people wore pants, women wore pants and jewelry, the pastor preached from the NIV, and the pastor did not harp on alcohol.

 

[evangelist6589]

Of course! We should preach Christ and Him Crucified.

However, when the subject of false doctrine comes up, it MUST be addressed according to God's word.

We need to hear about "giving" now and then, and whenever the subject arises, but we don't need to hear that all the time either .

My point, and it seems to have been missed, was that I will not sit under a pastor who refuses to condemn false teachers............when it comes up, of course .

Too many people, in life in general - not just in church - will accept whatever is thrown at them. The Bereans didn't, nor should we. Nor should we compromise sound doctrine, PERIOD, even if we must STAY HOME. We usually aren't faced with just the two options, but sometimes we almost are.

In His Service,

Jim

I agree Jim. However what was false about the SBC church? Contemporary Worship? Women whom wear pants? If not those then what? Many IFB have preferences that have become areas of separation.

 

[evangelist6589]

Actually, I thought I was on an IFB group, but it doesn't appear that I am.

Yes, even many IFB churches have gone Ecumenical and I will have no part of those churches, nor anyone else who thinks that way.

As an IFB I believe strongly in separation, from the world, false doctrines and even those who, by their own words, fall into that category.

Ecumenical and New Evangelical ideas will lead to a one-world church, and it's coming much quicker than many of us realized a few years ago.

So..............it is easy to see how "the right way" is still narrow and few be that travel it.

As much as I dislike the SBC, they sound a lot better than what I've been reading here. Been out of touch with the world I guess, but I like it that way.

Judgmental tone heh?

 

[HankD]

Sorry, Hank, you missed the entire nail :laugh:.

While "doctrine" is "teaching", I believe that "False Doctrine" involves the teaching on salvation. Just goes to show how we can fail to communicate doesn't it? False teaching could be that you must worship on Saturday, but that isn't a salvation issue. Usually, where you find false teachings like that, you will also find doctrinal error on salvation, tho. We can split hairs here, I suppose, where these terms are concerned. I consider teachings on things other than a salvation issue as "practices", but I suppose, technically, they could be considered "doctrines".

That women should dress modestly isn't a doctrinal issue where I am concerned, but it certainly is an issue of "practice", and if one wants, he can toss it into "doctrine".

So................no, the issue had nothing to do with long dresses and separation, although I believe one can make a Biblical case for both, for sure.

God Bless

OK, I had been involved in IFB churches early on in my Christian walk and it seems separation was always on the menu of the often times fiery sermons concerning ecumenism, separation, KJV, etc...

My apologies to you.

HankD

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree Jim. However what was false about the SBC church? Contemporary Worship? Women whom wear pants? If not those then what? Many IFB have preferences that have become areas of separation.

When did contemporary worship style and/or women wearing pants become an indicators of false teaching or doctrine? Or are you simply suggesting them as "his" issues?

Ooops nevermind, just noticed I am on the Fundamental Thread, I have no business being here.

 

[desertjim]

OK, I had been involved in IFB churches early on in my Christian walk and it seems separation was always on the menu of the often times fiery sermons concerning ecumenism, separation, KJV, etc...

My apologies to you.

HankD

No need to apologize to me, Hank. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[desertjim]

I agree Jim. However what was false about the SBC church? Contemporary Worship? Women whom wear pants? If not those then what? Many IFB have preferences that have become areas of separation.

Are you asking about a particular SBC church?

Most SBC churches will have a liberal leaning because it comes from the top down, even though the churches are autonomous. The pastor would be the main issue. An IFB pastor in an SBC church will make a huge difference in a short time.......if he doesn't get blown out of the pulpit. And, if not, he will loose a lot of hard-core liberals, but the church will be better off, IMHO, in the long run. The SBC convention itself is up and down where liberalism is concerned.

I grew up in the south where about all churches were fundamental, but few of you are old enough to remember those days....even if you were raised down in the south.

But about this list: there may be two or three FUNDAMENTALISTS on this list, but from what I have seen, the rest ARE NOT. That surprised me. And I don't like hypocrites. Now, let me give you my definition of a hypocrite: "It is someone who pretends to be something he doesn't intend to be."

I think there should be special forum for "poop stirrers" so the jokers who are totally insinsere can go there and stir to their hearts content.

 

[gb93433]

Most SBC churches will have a liberal leaning because it comes from the top down, even though the churches are autonomous. The pastor would be the main issue. An IFB pastor in an SBC church will make a huge difference in a short time.......if he doesn't get blown out of the pulpit. And, if not, he will loose a lot of hard-core liberals, but the church will be better off, IMHO, in the long run. The SBC convention itself is up and down where liberalism is concerned.

That is what happens when the godly, ungodly, and even unsaved members have the same power of a vote in a church.

There are not enough hours in a lifetime to address every false doctrine present in society. There are enough hours to teach people to feed themselves. If the church today were like the early church then people would get personal help in a small group.

 

[evangelist6589]

Are you asking about a particular SBC church?

Most SBC churches will have a liberal leaning because it comes from the top down, even though the churches are autonomous. The pastor would be the main issue. An IFB pastor in an SBC church will make a huge difference in a short time.......if he doesn't get blown out of the pulpit. And, if not, he will loose a lot of hard-core liberals, but the church will be better off, IMHO, in the long run. The SBC convention itself is up and down where liberalism is concerned.

I grew up in the south where about all churches were fundamental, but few of you are old enough to remember those days....even if you were raised down in the south.

But about this list: there may be two or three FUNDAMENTALISTS on this list, but from what I have seen, the rest ARE NOT. That surprised me. And I don't like hypocrites. Now, let me give you my definition of a hypocrite: "It is someone who pretends to be something he doesn't intend to be."

I think there should be special forum for "poop stirrers" so the jokers who are totally insinsere can go there and stir to their hearts content.

EXCUSE ME SIR but I just moved from Greenville, SC where I spent the last six years and two of which living at BJU. I know all about IFB churches and their ways. For fun I visited 4-5 SBC churches while in Grenville, and I would only call 2 of them in question. One of the SBC churches was very seeker friendly and would not hear anything about John MacArthur or The Way of the Master despite my attempts to persuade leadership to get more Biblical in their evangelism and their teachings. The leadership did not see the light and so I left.