How do Doctrinal Errors creep into the Church?

[BobRyan]

In Mark 7 we have a great example where well-meaing Bible teachers and scholars had "made stuff up" in such a way that it "sounded good" to the hearers and so finally the "teachings of man" were accepted as the Commands of God.

In the 2000 year history of the Christian church we see the church going from the pure doctrines of the NT first century Apostolic church - to the dark ages torture of the saints conducted by the RCC.

In the many different Christian groups we have today - we see evidences of doctrinal error in almost every area -

1. Prayers to the dead
2. Justifying the tortment of the saints in the dark ages
3. Rejecting Sola-Scriptura and Bible Exegesis
4. Baptism - everything from rose-pedals for infants to believer's baptism.
5. Rejection of the OT scripture
6. Worshipping bread as though it were God
7. Inventing Purgatory and Indulgences
8. Trashing vs Accepting the Ten Commandments of God
9. Many conflicted views on the 2nd coming
10. The Trinity -- or not.
11. The future Judgment

Regardless of which side of these issues and a zillion others you fall on - you can easily see that opposing views (and usually more than one) exists on every topic.

But the question here is the "mechanism" for the tickling-of-ears and good-sound-stories that HAD to be key in starting each of the myriad ideas on any given topic.

How did it get started?

Are people still doing it today?

Would a return to sound and rigorous principles of exegesis -- distinguishing good-sounding preferences and "Bible fact" etc solve the problem?

notice that in Acts 17:11 they "searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul WERE SO" -- how could they do that if they just used a "hey this seems like a good sounding story as a way to string these texts together".

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

How do Doctrinal Errors creep into the Church?

By letting false prophets (wolves in sheep's clothing) into the church.

It is the shepherd's (pastor's) job to keep the wolves at bay.

 

[BobRyan]

Often in doctrinal error situations - churches split so even if the pastor finds out the problem at some point -- the individual members still need some kind of skill as in Acts 17:11 or they themselves will be swept away.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

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.

 

[Eliyahu]

By following Human Works instead of the Holy Spirit.

People replaced the Faith in following Holy Spirit with Human Works + Faith.

Typical cases :

Legalism - Replaced the Faith with Faith+Works, without works, one can lose the salvation - as in the case of SDA.

Rituals - Rplaced the Faith with the Faith+Works( Rituals and Human Tradition), Without church tradition ( so-called Apostlic Tradition) no salvation- As in the case of Roman Catholics.

Truth is Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura,....

 

[BobRyan]

But in looking at the 2000 year history one has to be impressed with the success and devastation that Error has had in Christendom.

Do all tell themselves "I am rejecting scripture and embracing human tradition instead" when they swallow error hook line and sinker?

Your suggestion above is that they simply embrace man-made logic like "I don't accept that Bible teaching because SDAs also believe it" -- but I find that hard to believe.

I find that it is painfully obvious to the objective unbiased reader -- when they see someone clinging to 'error no matter what' on these boards. Because they see the display of horrendous rationalizing and logic to defend a failed point that has been fully challenged and exposed with scripture. So that is not how error "prospers".

"Error grows" in environments where no one seriously challenges it with the clear teaching of scripture. It grows in a sea of "I think..I think..I think" good sounding stories never challenged.

But error "survives" in the refusal of those who have embraced it to consider the Bible evidence against it -- even going to the point of embracing glaringly horrendous logic rather then yield an inch of the error that they hold. That fox hole demonstration does not "convince" new commers (the unbiased objective reader not already entrenched in a given view) -- but it enables error to "survive" past the time of close review and scrutiny.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[skypair]

Do all tell themselves "I am rejecting scripture and embracing human tradition instead" when they swallow error hook line and sinker?

The Bible has this answer covered, Bobby. Rom 1:21-25 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,... 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Happened nearly the same way with SDA, BTW. They knew God in Christ but, upon rejecting that, they unthankfully turned to the wisdom of men and made even Jesus Himself into the image of corruptible man.

Then they began to worship what some man had written more than the Bible and God -- which is where Calvinists find themselves and where you find yourself, Bob. They and you just failed to be "Bereans." Instead y'all poured scripture into the mold you believed and, no doubt here, the Bible came out saying just what you said it would.

It's then called "subverting the souls," Acts 15:24. By the time one is this far along, it is "impossible" to bring them back to the true gospel, Heb 6:4 for they have fruited out with "thorns and briers" and it is impossible to approach them in any wise with the truth.


Well, impossible for men -- which is why I keep praying for you and stay engaged with your misuderstandings of scripture.
skypair

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Would a return to sound and rigorous principles of exegesis -- distinguishing good-sounding preferences and "Bible fact" etc solve the problem?

HP: One of the most prominent ways error has made its way into the church is by that natural desire man is born with that ‘appears’ to coerce man into finding an excuse to blame his own choices of sin and evil. We see it in the smallest children and the most learned adults from the living room, to the classroom,to the courtroom. Something, someone else, my circumstances, or my environment, anything other than my own will via my own formed intents made me do it.

Picture an illusive pointing finger of guilt much like the hand writing on the wall Belshazzar saw in the OT, but instead of writing, this finger is simply pointing. As the finger wispily rotates to direct its focus of attention straight upon the soul of the man, the man tries to grab hold of the finger with all his might to force it to point another direction, a direction this coercive force within man desires for the finger to point, trying to coerce the force behind the finger from choosing his will as the object of the fingers attention. Anywhere other than the will of man will suffice the coercive desires within man. If he can only force the finger of guilt to point at God, Satan, Adam, or yet any other being, or his circumstances, or his environment, or the strength of temptation, any direction other than his own willful self would suffice.

Even on this list, on almost a daily basis, we witness this struggle of man against this finger of guilt. I see this battle as one of the most prominent ways error has forced its way into systems of theology prevalent in our church circles today.

We have but two choices before us. We can either accept and repeat the error of men of the past such as Augustine, or we can allow God's finger to attach its focus of attention in it's desired object, straight at the individual souls of men and their own personal formed intents of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. Which wll it be?

 

[JFox1]

In a sermon, my pastor blamed the liberals for errors entering the church because they don't believe in biblical inerrancy, they believe in women pastors, and homoexuality is not wrong. But if that's the case, how do errors creep into more conservative churches?

 

[TCGreek]

In Mark 7 we have a great example where well-meaing Bible teachers and scholars had "made stuff up" in such a way that it "sounded good" to the hearers and so finally the "teachings of man" were accepted as the Commands of God.

In the 2000 year history of the Christian church we see the church going from the pure doctrines of the NT first century Apostolic church - to the dark ages torture of the saints conducted by the RCC.

In the many different Christian groups we have today - we see evidences of doctrinal error in almost every area -

1. Prayers to the dead
2. Justifying the tortment of the saints in the dark ages
3. Rejecting Sola-Scriptura and Bible Exegesis
4. Baptism - everything from rose-pedals for infants to believer's baptism.
5. Rejection of the OT scripture
6. Worshipping bread as though it were God
7. Inventing Purgatory and Indulgences
8. Trashing vs Accepting the Ten Commandments of God
9. Many conflicted views on the 2nd coming
10. The Trinity -- or not.
11. The future Judgment

Regardless of which side of these issues and a zillion others you fall on - you can easily see that opposing views (and usually more than one) exists on every topic.

But the question here is the "mechanism" for the tickling-of-ears and good-sound-stories that HAD to be key in starting each of the myriad ideas on any given topic.

How did it get started?

Are people still doing it today?

Would a return to sound and rigorous principles of exegesis -- distinguishing good-sounding preferences and "Bible fact" etc solve the problem?

notice that in Acts 17:11 they "searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul WERE SO" -- how could they do that if they just used a "hey this seems like a good sounding story as a way to string these texts together".

Thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JFox1:In a sermon, my pastor blamed the liberals for errors entering the church because they don't believe in biblical inerrancy, they believe in women pastors, and homoexuality is not wrong. But if that's the case, how do errors creep into more conservative churches?

HP: Which version are they going to uphold as inerrant? If they say it is the ‘original manuscripts’ that are inerrant, where are they and even so where is the inerrant translator to interpret them for us?

As for women preachers,……..I for one am not going there.:saint:

As for homosexuality, one thing Scripture does in fact call sin, why should that bother anyone anymore than any other sin? We have been told over and over than sin is unavoidable, and that all Christians are sinners, and if we say we do not sin or that we have no sin we are liars,……..so what is the big deal here? Is there someone with a strong arm feeling up to casting a few stones?

I for one believe that if we are to lay the blame on the source of error, we are going to find ourselves studying carefully the foundational principles of truth. The following areas I believe will yield the source of error: What is the meaning of morality and where does it reside? What constitutes obedience and what constitutes sin?

 

[Chemnitz]

Doctrinal errors occur in two different ways, generally speaking.

The most common cause is by well meaning people seeking to answer hard theological questions such as the crux de theologomina "Why some and not others?" or how can Jesus be full God and full man? Nine times out of ten they start out well but end up going well beyond what is revealed in scripture in order to answer their question. Slightly less common are the people who look at a passage and then blow it completely out of proportion ala The Prayer of Jabez.

The second path through which most errors come about is through people who have an agenda. Marcion wanted to eliminate all hint of Jewishness from Christianity so he edited scripture to eliminate anything that encouraged following the law, claiming that these section were Jewish corruptions of the text. Others were reacting to one error and in the attempt to correct the error distanced themselves so far from the original error as to create a new error. We probably could chuck the I only believe in this but not that because that makes me uncomfortable errors into this category.

 

[BobRyan]

Whatever the motive of the one introducing the error - what are the methods? What are the key flaws in the congregation that have to be there to accept error when one is familiar with truth?

Paul said in Acts 20 that after his departure wolves would come in - not sparing the flock - teaching error.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

notice that in Acts 17:11 they "searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul WERE SO" -- how could they do that if they just used a "hey this seems like a good sounding story as a way to string these texts together".

I agree that we should search and seek to understand scripture ourselves instead of taking what anyone says. I believe it's like two who witness an accident yet have to very different versions of what happened. Everyone who didn't see the accident themself will go by what they were told. The problem then multiplies.

You do know the ones searching the scriptures in Acts 17:11 were the Jews in Berea and not the Church? Jews present another problem, they can quote scripture to the letter but have little understanding of how to apply it to life.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes they were the God-fearing Gentiles and the Jews who heard Paul preaching each Sabbath -- they were reading the Bible as believers in the one true God but not as those who knew the Messiah of scripture to be Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet even THEY were enabled to study scripture and SEE IF the stories/doctrines/explanations given to them by Paul "WERE SO".

One has to "assume" that they were exposed to "many a good sounding Jewish story" and could easily have rejected Paul in favor of what others had been saying all along. Yet they were able by carefully distinguishing in scripture between fact and preference, fact and opinion, fact and tradition... that Paul was more accurate in holding forth what scripture actually said - EVEN though it differed with their accepted, popular leaders and the way that they were spinning commonly accepted doctrine.

That is shocking enough to wake the dead!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

Thread Question is moot until we decide how doctrines creep into the Church. <G>

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BW: Thread Question is moot until we decide how doctrines creep into the Church. <G>

HP: Before yet another doctrinal idea such as Adam and Eve being invisible ghostlike blimps floating around the garden on magical carpets 'creeps' into the Church, you might need to clear this up on the ‘Was man Created Mortal" thread.:laugh:

P.S. I sure hope Brother Bob is keeping up with these threads. He always seems to appreciate a bit of humor.

 

[BobRyan]

Ahh yes - the "how" question

Whatever the motive of the one introducing the error - what are the methods? What are the key flaws in the congregation that have to be there to accept error when one is familiar with truth?

Paul said in Acts 20 that after his departure wolves would come in - not sparing the flock - teaching error.

in Christ,

Bob

Certainly --

prayers to the dead
torture of the saints
arbitrary selection
purgatory
prayers to idols
worship of bread
Rejecting -- even condemning - God's Commandments
etc can be seen as clear examples THAT error crept into the church.

But the question is HOW

 

[skypair]

But the question here is the "mechanism" for the tickling-of-ears and good-sound-stories that HAD to be key in starting each of the myriad ideas on any given topic.

How did it get started?

Are people still doing it today?

Apart from the why question that I answered with Rom 1:20-23, Ed Hinson gives a good rundown on the how question in Foreshadows of Wrath and Redemption. I know I have to check myself every so often on these but I am sure you could use a self-examination as well, BR. Step-by-step, here goes:

1) We think that we alone know the truth, therefore we alone are the people of God.

2) Extrabiblical Revelation: We have a special message from God

3) Presumptuous Leadership: We know what is best for you.

4) Exclusive Salvation: We alone are the people of God; therefore all others are lost.

5) Limited Eschatology: Jesus is coming only for us; we alone are spared.

6) Persecution Complex: The world is against us because we have the truth.

Well, I can't give all the details but you get the idea. You get off "by yourselves" doctrinally and, Heb 6:8 bearing your briars and thorns and 6:4 it is impossible to bring you back to repentance to the rest of the body of Christ. It's like your "soul sleep" thing, Bob, and many other dogmas that you refuse to reconsider -- it is impossible for anyone to bring you back.

skypair

 

[BobRyan]

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