How do Doctrinal Errors creep into the Church?

[Chemnitz]

The prime mechanisms by which error creep into the church are two fold. First, people don't care very few people actually care about maintaining sound doctrine. The vast majority only care if the feel at home in a place, beyond that they may only give consideration to whether or not it sounds like the preacher appears to be preaching from the Bible.

The second mechanism is tightly related to the first. Most people only ask the question, "Do I feel feed by this church?" This question does not consider the quality of the food. Many people feel feed by Joel Osteen, but they are slowly starving on a nutrient poor diet.

 

[skypair]

In 1Cor 14 all had "a revelation, a tongue, a teaching" and that "was the blessing" -- the responsibility was that they needed to exercise those valid gifts in order while they "desired EARNESTLY spiritual gifts ESPECIALLY that you may prophesy" 1Cor 14:1.

Hint: The solution is never "reject the Bible".

Yet you have a "special message" that Sunday worshippers have the "mark of the beast" and that there is "soul sleep" that no one else can see. No, BobR, you are taking scripture and purposely "massaging" it to your own ends.

Yes, we are to desire to prophesy -- that is TEACH, not LEAD ASTRAY.

In Acts 17:11 Paul thought he had a message from God - but STILL they "studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

Hint: The difference was not in Paul - but in those who studied to SEE if what he said was in fact "so".

What "difference" are you talking about? Are you saying that only YOU study scripture and establish truth? There's that "we alone know the truth" and "extrabiblical revelation" Ed Hinson spoke of.

In 1Cor 12:2-5 Paul WARNS that they might receive one who teaches error graciously and well - not doing the careful search and review of what was being taught.

HINT: Merely accepting the pablum of popular doctrine is not the harbor of safety many believe it to be.

Moving right on into "presumptuous leadership." You're batting 1000% so far!

In the teaching of Paul and John etc - they often presented their message as the way of salvation and all others as lost.

HINT: the solution is not to dilute the teaching of scripture.

And by seeming to associate yourself with scripture, you admit to "exclusive salvation." Well, there's one thing amiss --- Jesus was God. Did you miss that in scripture?

Sounds like it's time for y'all to drink the Koolaid or lock up the compound -- the whole world is against you, eh?

skypair

 

[BobRyan]

The prime mechanisms by which error creep into the church are two fold. First, people don't care very few people actually care about maintaining sound doctrine. The vast majority only care if the feel at home in a place, beyond that they may only give consideration to whether or not it sounds like the preacher appears to be preaching from the Bible.

The second mechanism is tightly related to the first. Most people only ask the question, "Do I feel feed by this church?" This question does not consider the quality of the food. Many people feel feed by Joel Osteen, but they are slowly starving on a nutrient poor diet.

Bingo!!

"Making stuff up" is how many people get led astray and they willingly follow a "good sounding story" because in fact they have not learned any better. Those who came before them thought they were doing the congregation a favor by feeding them good stories on points they felt were sound - the problem is the congregation "went to sleep" and then the 2Cor 12 problem settled in -

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

While I appreciate the fact that skypair chooses to simply rant for a while when reading the incovenient facts of scripture highlighted below... I am wondering if that is all he has left.

In 1Cor 14 all had "a revelation, a tongue, a teaching" and that "was the blessing" the responsibility was that they needed to exercise those valid gifts in order while they "desired EARNESTLY spiritual gifts ESPECIALLY that you may prophesy" 1Cor 14:1.

Hint: The solution is never "reject the Bible".

In Acts 17:11 Paul thought he had a message from God - but STILL they "studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

Hint: The difference was not in Paul - but in those who studied to SEE if what he said was in fact "so".

In 1Cor 12:2-5 Paul WARNS that they might receive one who teaches error graciously and well - not doing the careful search and review of what was being taught.

HINT: Merely accepting the pablum of popular doctrine is not the harbor of safety many believe it to be.

In the teaching of Paul and John etc - they often presented their message as the way of salvation and all others as lost.

HINT: the solution is not to dilute the teaching of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

Skypair - surely there is at least one actual point left some place for you to make on this topic. I would welcome some actual substance in your post -- go ahead -- try it. If you're goint to object to the scriptures referenced show some actual substance as to why you object.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[skypair]

Bob,

You have no credibility on the topic. You have fallen under the influence of error and won't study Rom 1:20-23 nor heed what Ed Hinson had said. It is not necessary for you to get any more information. You need to consider what you have and come back.

I had a very good SDA friend 25 years ago -- dragged his SBC wife into SDA and living the law and their great illusion of living through "Apocalypse." But they were "locked in" by the paranoia Hinson describes. They would never fellowship with AC. Perfect example of Heb 6:4, wouldn't you say?

skypair

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

You have no credibility on the topic. You have fallen under the influence of error and won't study Rom 1:20-23 nor heed what Ed Hinson had said. It is not necessary for you to (Obligatory ranting deleted here)
...they were "locked in" by the paranoia Hinson describes.

Oh "good" more obligatory ranting.

(Probably shouldn't ask this of you but... here goes)
Why do you drag all that stuff in as if you had actual relevant facts? What is it you think you know about me????

Are the inconvenient details already raised on this thread so intimidating for you that you must completely ignore them in every post???

By stark contrast -- let us review a very well formed - excellent post "on topic" and devoid of empty hollow ranting.

The prime mechanisms by which error creep into the church are two fold. First, people don't care very few people actually care about maintaining sound doctrine. The vast majority only care if the feel at home in a place, beyond that they may only give consideration to whether or not it sounds like the preacher appears to be preaching from the Bible.

The second mechanism is tightly related to the first. Most people only ask the question, "Do I feel feed by this church?" This question does not consider the quality of the food. Many people feel feed by Joel Osteen, but they are slowly starving on a nutrient poor diet.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[skypair]

Why do you drag all that stuff in as if you had actual relevant facts? What is it you think you know about me????

Are the inconvenient details already raised on this thread so intimidating for you that you must completely ignore them in every post???.

Interesting you would pick on this post and not the 2 where I addressed the OP with Rom 1:20-23 and Ed Hinson's remarks.

What do I think I know about you? You tote the SDA line.

Are the issues too intimidating? Of course not. I can see when someone has rejected God's word and gone on to remake Him in the image that men have created of Him. Confess that Jesus was God and prove me wrong. Else realize that you have been the victim of the OP's "petard."

Is it not germane to present an example as to "How Doctrinal Errors creep into the Church?" Suppose someone actually believed you.

skypair

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that the individual members need discernment and should know how to test the spirits. If the pastor has a large church, the members may have to inform him of the problem.

good point

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

You have no credibility on the topic. You have fallen under the influence of error and won't study Rom 1:20-23

In your post on page one you did not actually 'say anything' of substance -- what else could anyone do but ignore it??

I can't make stew out of a stone -- you have to contribute in some way.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Human factor, as simple as that. :thumbs:

yes the human factor that simply accepts without testing against scripture "sola scriptura" -- all doctrine to be vetted by the Word.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting you would pick on this post and not the 2 where I addressed the OP with Rom 1:20-23 and Ed Hinson's remarks.

What do I think I know about you?

Aparently not very much.

Where is "Ed Hinson" posting on this thread?

Link?

 

[skypair]

In your post on page one you did not actually 'say anything' of substance -- what else could anyone do but ignore it??

If you didn't understand, you could always ask. Basically, it was there in Rom 1:20-23

Deny Christ was God,

Weren't thankful,

Foolish heart darkened ("The fool hath said in his heart..."),

Made God in the image "like corruptible man" (Christ is a man instead).

That's where false religion and religious cults come from, Bob.

skypair

 

[BobRyan]

The question is not WHAT errors do pagans in Romans 1 accecpt but HOW as believing Christians did ERROR come up within the church (More of an Acts 20, 1Tim 1, Mark 7, Titus 1 kinda discussion than a Romans 1 discussion)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[skypair]

The question is not WHAT errors do pagans in Romans 1 accecpt but HOW as believing Christians did ERROR come up within the church (More of an Acts 20, 1Tim 1, Mark 7, Titus 1 kinda discussion than a Romans 1 discussion)

Well, to me they are the same -- men led by the flesh instead of by the Spirit. I know your point but I don't believe it is a good one.

But I might refer you to 1Cor 1 and 4 where Paul speaks of Cephas and Apollos leading men to "divide the body of Christ" and take their eye off their original salvation in Christ. Have any comments on that?

skypair

 

[BobRyan]

I point is that exegesis is better than eisegesis -- Romans 1 context is to pagan -- Acts 20 context is to errors that come in via the church members.

Clearly we differ in our appreciation of those details.

As for other errors in the church - please show in 1Cor 4 where Appollos was "dividing the church".

Again - I feel we are going to find a point where you are not paying close attention to the details of scriptures that you bring up.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[atestring]

Sometimes there are nuggets of truth that have been ignored and someone teaches something and another person takes up a cause an takes it to far.

 

[Alcott]

How do doctrinal error "creep" into the church? I guess they come in tippytoe. But come off it, little Bobby. You are always leading up to one issue and I'm sure you're creeping it in here.

 

[BobRyan]

Alcott -

Are you afraid of something?

Why not simply participate in the discussion instead of attacking?

Time to think -- not shrink.

As an Oriental CEO I once worked for used to say "what motivate you"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[skypair]

As for other errors in the church - please show in 1Cor 4 where Appollos was "dividing the church".

Ryrie says Apollos was insisting on formalism in worship (I believe, I don't have my Ryrie in Newark). It was a small issue but believers were saying they were "of Apollos" and denigrating those of Cephas and Paul and Christ. The main point Paul gives us is 1) "...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,..." 2) "...that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." that is, divisively.

This is another way that churches are led astray --- following the doctrines of men.


skypair

 

[BobRyan]

"Ryrie says Apollos was..." is not the "sola scriptura" proof I was looking for to back up the claim that 1Cor 3 or 4 "the text - not the commentator" actually says Apollos was dividing the church.

But I understand that this speculative note may be all the fact you have on that statement about 1Cor 3 and 4. Certainly it is clear that the "childish" behavior of the people in Corinth was resulting in division of the camp-for Apollos vs the camp for Paul. Kinda the way some people divide Romans 2 against Romans 3 or Christ's teaching's pre-cross against Paul's etc as if they were really teaching different gospels.

So while neither Paul nor Apollos are in error, nor Romans 2 vs Romans 3 in error, nor Christ's teachings or Paul's in error - the childish sheep can sometimes construe them that way and it is glaringly obvious as they say things like "Romans 2 is not actually true" or "don't live in a pre-cross world of Christ's teachings -- reject that and to go to Paul's" etc.

Then those sheep "become leaders" and others start following "them".

in Christ,

Bob