The Source of False Doctrine

[The Biblicist]

The spiritual source of all false doctrine are demons - 1 Tim. 4:1.

However, the practical sources of false doctrine can be summarized by two categories:

1. Source of authority external to Scriptures
2. Failure to properly interpet a given text by its immediate context.

There are many on this forum that fall in the second category. Instead of careful exegesis of a text in its immediate context they read into that text and context scriptures outside that context.

The scriptues they use to read into another context usually are not properly interpreted by their own immediate context, and so they duplicate their error twice over when they use a proof text out of context to interpet another text in a different context.

This is the repeated and common error that I run into with many on this forum.

This is the root of most false doctrine - trying to interpret a text by using proof texts out of context.

THE PROPER PROCEDURE: The proper procedure is first interpet a text or word by its immediate context. ONce that is established then proceed to deal with other texts that might have an appearance of contradiction by interpreting them first by their own immediate context. Usually, the appearance of contradiction is removed by proper exegesis of that proof text in its own context. Hence, don't jump from text to text or attempt to read other texts into a certain context until you first have established the contextual interpetation.

If this basic procedure is not followed there is no end of error and no way for scriptures to be properly harmonized.

 

[SolaSaint]

If you were to preach this to all the seeker friendly churches out there you would be thrown out.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you were to preach this to all the seeker friendly churches out there you would be thrown out.

Ain't that the truth!:thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

The spiritual source of all false doctrine are demons - 1 Tim. 4:1.

However, the practical sources of false doctrine can be summarized by two categories:

1. Source of authority external to Scriptures
2. Failure to properly interpet a given text by its immediate context.

There are many on this forum that fall in the second category. Instead of careful exegesis of a text in its immediate context they read into that text and context scriptures outside that context.

The scriptues they use to read into another context usually are not properly interpreted by their own immediate context, and so they duplicate their error twice over when they use a proof text out of context to interpet another text in a different context.

This is the repeated and common error that I run into with many on this forum.

This is the root of most false doctrine - trying to interpret a text by using proof texts out of context.

THE PROPER PROCEDURE: The proper procedure is first interpet a text or word by its immediate context. ONce that is established then proceed to deal with other texts that might have an appearance of contradiction by interpreting them first by their own immediate context. Usually, the appearance of contradiction is removed by proper exegesis of that proof text in its own context. Hence, don't jump from text to text or attempt to read other texts into a certain context until you first have established the contextual interpetation.

If this basic procedure is not followed there is no end of error and no way for scriptures to be properly harmonized.

People need to realise that ONLY the Bible is THE source dor all doctrines and practices, and IF our church traditions/beliefs contridict the Bible, they are wrong and it is right!

Also, NO more revelations from God since John passed, canon now closed, God is silent, already said all that he plans to for now, in His Son and the bible!

So if someone is claiming to have special insight from the Lord that NONE has seen in past 1900 years in the Bible, be VERY suspect of that claim!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The spiritual source of all false doctrine are demons - 1 Tim. 4:1.

Interesting

However, the practical sources of false doctrine can be summarized by two categories:

1. Source of authority external to Scriptures

Agreed--and this includes any institution or individual who introduces a novel interpretation of the Scriptures not believed on by the consensus of the early Church who received the Scriptures from the Apostles and who recognized the limits of the Canon.

2. Failure to properly interpet a given text by its immediate context.

And by it's wider context as well.

 

[Jope]

The spiritual source of all false doctrine are demons - 1 Tim. 4:1.

However, the practical sources of false doctrine can be summarized by two categories:

1. Source of authority external to Scriptures
2. Failure to properly interpet a given text by its immediate context.

There are many on this forum that fall in the second category. Instead of careful exegesis of a text in its immediate context they read into that text and context scriptures outside that context.

The scriptues they use to read into another context usually are not properly interpreted by their own immediate context, and so they duplicate their error twice over when they use a proof text out of context to interpet another text in a different context.

This is the repeated and common error that I run into with many on this forum.

This is the root of most false doctrine - trying to interpret a text by using proof texts out of context.

THE PROPER PROCEDURE: The proper procedure is first interpet a text or word by its immediate context. ONce that is established then proceed to deal with other texts that might have an appearance of contradiction by interpreting them first by their own immediate context. Usually, the appearance of contradiction is removed by proper exegesis of that proof text in its own context. Hence, don't jump from text to text or attempt to read other texts into a certain context until you first have established the contextual interpetation.

If this basic procedure is not followed there is no end of error and no way for scriptures to be properly harmonized.

Hey Biblicist. I agree with you to a degree.

Concerning your first point, that's not necessarily true, though the Bible is the sole spot for sound doctrine, and all other literature comes second to its authority. What I find when I read extrabiblical literature is, that sometimes at least, there are things that are right and match with the Bible, while there are other things that disagree with the Bible.

Paul quotes an extrabiblical source in Acts 17. He says that this portion of this poet (aratus), is true: "as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring" (V. 28, KJV).

Also, Paul does a similar thing in Titus 1:12-13.

And Moses had his source from a book "of the wars of the LORD" that he referenced to (Numbers 21:14).

This wikipedia link is a list of extrabiblical works referenced in the Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

As well, words mean something. This is especially important when we have to translate, say, a Greek word that makes its appearance in only one place in the Bible. The correct way to interpret such a word is to see how that word was used in the era of time in which it was written. This can be found out by reading extra-biblical literature of the time era that uses that same word, and then seeing how that word is used in that extrabiblical literature.

Concerning your second point,

The New Testament makes reference to the Old Testament scriptures in a rather scattered manner. It takes things "out of context". The Jeremiah quote in Matthew 2:16-18 is a perfect example of this.

Isaiah says that the OT scriptures were lacking organization (Isa. 28:10), but the Apostle's instruction to Timothy is the first place that we find the command to organize the scriptures: "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim. 2:15, KJV). This command demands that the OT scriptures at least (maybe not so much the NT scriptures, excluding the apocalypse), are to be organized, and are to be "taken out of context" to do such organization. Matthew's quotation of Jeremiah is not the only example. The 69th psalm is another example. Peter's quotation of Joel 2:28-32 is another. Isaiah 25:8 and its quotation in 1Corinthians 15:54 is another.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hey Biblicist. I agree with you to a degree.

Concerning your first point, that's not necessarily true, though the Bible is the sole spot for sound doctrine, and all other literature comes second to its authority. What I find when I read extrabiblical literature is, that sometimes at least, there are things that are right and match with the Bible, while there are other things that disagree with the Bible.

Paul quotes an extrabiblical source in Acts 17. He says that this portion of this poet (aratus), is true: "as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring" (V. 28, KJV).

Also, Paul does a similar thing in Titus 1:12-13.

And Moses had his source from a book "of the wars of the LORD" that he referenced to (Numbers 21:14).

It is one thing to randomly quote something because it is in agreement with the Word of God and quite another thing to suggest that a selective quoting is an approval of the entire work or is acknowledgement that such a source is an authority equal with scripture.


This wikipedia link is a list of extrabiblical works referenced in the Bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

As well, words mean something. This is especially important when we have to translate, say, a Greek word that makes its appearance in only one place in the Bible. The correct way to interpret such a word is to see how that word was used in the era of time in which it was written. This can be found out by reading extra-biblical literature of the time era that uses that same word, and then seeing how that word is used in that extrabiblical literature.

Not necessarily. Another way is to see how the immediate context and related contexts within the Word of God bare upon its meaning. Furthermore, if it is found but only once or twice in scripture it is usually of no great significance in regard to doctrine or practice as hundreds of years of Christians in various nations have got along quite fine without knowing its historical meaning.

Concerning your second point,

The New Testament makes reference to the Old Testament scriptures in a rather scattered manner. It takes things "out of context". The Jeremiah quote in Matthew 2:16-18 is a perfect example of this.

Isaiah says that the OT scriptures were lacking organization (Isa. 28:10), but the Apostle's instruction to Timothy is the first place that we find the command to organize the scriptures: "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim. 2:15, KJV). This command demands that the OT scriptures at least (maybe not so much the NT scriptures, excluding the apocalypse), are to be organized, and are to be "taken out of context" to do such organization. Matthew's quotation of Jeremiah is not the only example. The 69th psalm is another example. Peter's quotation of Joel 2:28-32 is another. Isaiah 25:8 and its quotation in 1Corinthians 15:54 is another.

This is the beauty of inspiration - 2 Pet. 1:20-21. God did this selective quoting through his New Testament prophets. They didn't just arbritrarily select passages or words by human wisdom.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

ATTENTION ALL FORUM MEMBERS!

To be absolutely certain your views and interpretations of scripture are correct, submit them to the Biblicist for his evaluation. You cannot be certain that your views are correct because you are fallible, and you do not always interpret in context. However, the Biblicist is infallible and thus ALWAYS without exception interprets scripture in context. In fact, he is the only human to have that ability since Christ.

So, to make sure that your interpretations are in context and that you are not getting your views and doctrines from demons, run those views past the Biblicist. He will either affirm your views or set you straight regarding the correct view, being that he has the gift of infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture in its immediate and thus correct context.

Just think, if I had known the Biblicist all those many years ago, I would not have had to go through all that I have gone through, including my education. I could have saved much time and money and gone straight to the infallible source of Biblical interpretation - the Biblicist himself!

How fortunate we are indeed to have been graced with such illumination, spiritual ability, and giftedness on this forum! We are truly blessed above all other forums, and indeed all of Christianity.

[edited]

 

[The Biblicist]

ATTENTION ALL FORUM MEMBERS!

To be absolutely certain your views and interpretations of scripture are correct, submit them to the Biblicist for his evaluation. You cannot be certain that your views are correct because you are fallible, and you do not always interpret in context. However, the Biblicist is infallible and thus ALWAYS without exception interprets scripture in context. In fact, he is the only human to have that ability since Christ.

So, to make sure that your interpretations are in context and that you are not getting your views and doctrines from demons, run those views past the Biblicist. He will either affirm your views or set you straight regarding the correct view, being that he has the gift of infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture in its immediate and thus correct context.

Just think, if I had known the Biblicist all those many years ago, I would not have had to go through all that I have gone through, including my education. I could have saved much time and money and gone straight to the infallible source of Biblical interpretation - the Biblicist himself!

How fortunate we are indeed to have been graced with such illumination, spiritual ability, and giftedness on this forum! We are truly blessed above all other forums, and indeed all of Christianity.

Biblicist, I am personally counting on you to help me avoid doctrine of demons. Will you kindly consent to be my personal spiritual guru?

You are violating the very thing you condemned in others. You are resorting to ridicule and name calling ("guru") but when others ridiucle you, then you cry out such tactics are the "fruits" of their real character.

I have the right to disagree with you or anyone else on this forum. I have the right to state my position. THAT IS ALL I HAVE DONE. I did not ridicule anyone in this thread. YOU HAVE INTRODUCED RIDICULE in this thread.

If I would have responded to your post like this you would be calling me all kinds of names.

It shows that you are incapable of reasonable Biblical based responses.

 

[Jope]

Not necessarily. Another way is to see how the immediate context and related contexts within the Word of God bare upon its meaning.

I agree (to a degree). I say that both ways (mine and yours) are plausible methods of interpretation.

Where we run into trouble with your "context" method is, with OT scripture.

The OT scriptures are scattered in their composition. The rule of "context" isn't as applicable to the OT scriptures as it is to the new. A lot of the NT scriptures are epistles. These epistles are not scattered (if we call the apocalypse an "epistle", then I guess there is the exception of the apocalypse).

The OT prophets wrote what they did from movement of the Holy Ghost, as you have quoted (2Pet. 1:20-21). It wasn't their own interpretation. The Mystery of Christ, as well, wasn't revealed to them. It is now revealed, "and by the scriptures of [those] prophets [who wrote what they did from movement of the Holy Ghost, in a scattered manner, not their own interpretation]" (Rom. 16:25, KJV). Their scriptures were lacking organization (Isa. 28:10). Paul's command to Timothy through that same Holy Ghost, was to "rightly divide" the scriptures. Timothy, as well as we, in distinction to the OT prophets, have the revelation of the mystery.

Furthermore, if it is found but only once or twice in scripture it is usually of no great significance in regard to doctrine or practice as hundreds of years of Christians in various nations have got along quite fine without knowing its historical meaning.

Well, we do know that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. A lot of truth was lost through the dark ages. Before this, all the Church Fathers were dispensational. There was probably a lot less ambiguities in their time than there is now. I think that dispensationalism elucidates a lot of ambiguities in scripture.

This is the beauty of inspiration - 2 Pet. 1:20-21. God did this selective quoting through his New Testament prophets. They didn't just arbritrarily select passages or words by human wisdom.

We can do the same thing as the apostles did with the OT scriptures and "rightly divide" it. Division requires separation of pieces to go to their proper group. Deductive reasoning is our aid. I think that people like J. Dwight Pentecost and Arnold Fruchtenbaum and John Darby have done excellent work on division/organization of the Word.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree (to a degree). I say that both ways (mine and yours) are plausible methods of interpretation.

Where we run into trouble with your "context" method is, with OT scripture.

No! You are comparing how INSPIRED men used certain OT texts with how you and I are to interpet context. That is part of INSPIRATION not Biblical interpretation. Their application is NOT CONTRARY TO IMMEDIATE CONTEXT.

A lot of truth was lost through the dark ages. Before this, all the Church Fathers were dispensational. There was probably a lot less ambiguities in their time than there is now. I think that dispensationalism elucidates a lot of ambiguities in scripture.

The "church fathers" [ant-Nicene, Nicene, Post-nicene] are heretics. No truth was lost. Those who held and preached the truth were persecuted and killed by Rome.

 

[Jope]

No! You are comparing how INSPIRED men used certain OT texts with how you and I are to interpet context. That is part of INSPIRATION not Biblical interpretation. Their application is NOT CONTRARY TO IMMEDIATE CONTEXT.

Why the caps?

 

[Jope]

The "church fathers" [ant-Nicene, Nicene, Post-nicene] are heretics. No truth was lost. Those who held and preached the truth were persecuted and killed by Rome.

Ever heard of Justin Martyr?

 

[Jope]

Biblicist, if I may, I am going to give you some criticism.

I read a lot in your posts of how quick you are to anger.

People don't like conversing with a man like that: "Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise men turn away wrath" (Pr. 29:8, KJV), "Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous" (Pr. 27:4, KJV).

The wrath of Man worketh not the righteousness of God.

Tone it down a notch and speak like a gentleman.

There's nothing wrong with obeying Proverbs 26:4-5:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (KJV).​

This shouldn't violate James 1:20 though.

 

[Jope]

That is part of INSPIRATION not Biblical interpretation. Their application is NOT CONTRARY TO IMMEDIATE CONTEXT.

To prove my point, how both our methods are plausible, let's go to Ephesians 5:4. In it we find a word that makes its only appearance in the Bible: "εὐτραπελία".

How do you interpret such a word? Of course, immediate context says that whatever this word is, it's "not convenient" (Eph. 5:4, KJV). But is that all? surely there is a meaning to this word, otherwise Paul would've left this word out in his epistle.

It turns out, that in extrabiblical literature, we read, as well, of one religious poet Pindar (c. 522–443 BC) using this word in a negative sense. The usage of the word in his work (Nemean Ode 4. 101) is evidence that this word can denote language as well as deed.

So we know that this word, denoting "vain lightness", as Arnold's article which is referenced below, will put it, can denote such vanity in deed and word.

I think that, if we consult other scriptures like Proverbs 10:23 and Proverbs 26:18-19, that Paul is condemning the kind of mischievous sporting, as is all mischievous sporting, that is done in the spirit of disorder.

Arnold, M. (1916). Eutrapelia, retrieved from http://www.bartleby.com/209/1189.html​

 

[Jope]

No! You are comparing how INSPIRED men used certain OT texts with how you and I are to interpet context.

I think you misread me.

I did say "as well":

As well, words mean something. This is especially important when we have to translate, say, a Greek word that makes its appearance in only one place in the Bible. The correct way to interpret such a word is to see how that word was used in the era of time in which it was written. This can be found out by reading extra-biblical literature of the time era that uses that same word, and then seeing how that word is used in that extrabiblical literature.

This would denote that I am stating another different point.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ever heard of Justin Martyr?

Most make a distinction between "apostolic" fathers "church Father's." Justin Maryry was among the "apostolic" fathers. However, he too was heretical in several areas.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, if I may, I am going to give you some criticism.

I read a lot in your posts of how quick you are to anger.

People don't like conversing with a man like that: "Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise men turn away wrath" (Pr. 29:8, KJV), "Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous" (Pr. 27:4, KJV).

The wrath of Man worketh not the righteousness of God.

Tone it down a notch and speak like a gentleman.

There's nothing wrong with obeying Proverbs 26:4-5:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (KJV).​

This shouldn't violate James 1:20 though.

Oh boy!!! Capital letters do not mean I am angry. They are for emphasis.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The "church fathers" [ant-Nicene, Nicene, Post-nicene] are heretics.

And I'm sure they would probably return the favor and say the same thing about you.

 

[The Biblicist]

To prove my point, how both our methods are plausible, let's go to Ephesians 5:4. In it we find a word that makes its only appearance in the Bible: "εὐτραπελία".

How do you interpret such a word? Of course, immediate context says that whatever this word is, it's "not convenient" (Eph. 5:4, KJV). But is that all? surely there is a meaning to this word, otherwise Paul would've left this word out in his epistle.

It turns out, that in extrabiblical literature, we read, as well, of one religious poet Pindar (c. 522–443 BC) using this word in a negative sense. The usage of the word in his work (Nemean Ode 4. 101) is evidence that this word can denote language as well as deed.

So we know that this word, denoting "vain lightness", as Arnold's article which is referenced below, will put it, can denote such vanity in deed and word.

I think that, if we consult other scriptures like Proverbs 10:23 and Proverbs 26:18-19, that Paul is condemning the kind of mischievous sporting, as is all mischievous sporting, that is done in the spirit of disorder.

Arnold, M. (1916). Eutrapelia, retrieved from http://www.bartleby.com/209/1189.html​

First, the immediate context demonstrates it is a negative not a positive.

Second, as I said before, when only one word is found it is never in regard to anything essential to doctrine or practice.

Third, the whole verse modifies the latter part of verse 3 and the words "let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;" and thus it is not "covenient" to express Christian testimony.