The Source of False Doctrine

[The Biblicist]

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

I am sure some would think of you that way also. So..........

 

[The Biblicist]

Why the caps?

For emphasis, not anger!

 

[TisMe]

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).

People and the moderation have been telling him this since he arrived on this forum and even has been given infractions for it. However, when people get coaxed into it the moderation can do very little. Just ignore him like many do or as you have done continue with grace and scripture and REPORT him. That is what I was warned to do. Just REPORT him and hope that the moderation gives him another infraction or he is banned from harassing people on this forum. Either way Good luck.

 

[The Biblicist]

People and the moderation have been telling him this since he arrived on this forum and even has been given infractions for it. However, when people get coaxed into it the moderation can do very little. Just ignore him like many do or as you have done continue with grace and scripture and REPORT him. That is what I was warned to do. Just REPORT him and hope that the moderation gives him another infraction or he is banned from harassing people on this forum. Either way Good luck.

Yes, pleaseeeeeee report me. When the only thing a person goes on is capital letters to make such accusations then you are being guilty of the very thing you are accusing me of.

Of course, when you can't respond to rational Biblical based statments then why not falsely accuse the person of being angry or etc. That is the easy way out isn't it.

 

[The Biblicist]

People and the moderation have been telling him this since he arrived on this forum and even has been given infractions for it. However, when people get coaxed into it the moderation can do very little. Just ignore him like many do or as you have done continue with grace and scripture and REPORT him. That is what I was warned to do. Just REPORT him and hope that the moderation gives him another infraction or he is banned from harassing people on this forum. Either way Good luck.

You and Jope have made a false accusation against me based merely upon my use of capital letters - period! Find anything in this thread that indicates I am angry or abusing anyone. If not, then you need to apologize. I use capitals like many use bold and underline for emphasis only. You accusation is false.

 

[TisMe]

I am surprised you are allowed even to be on this forum as it is for Christians and what you embrace is cultic and anti-christ.

I was not necessarily referring to the Cap's but all the other horrible things you say to people.

I have quoted you above from another thread, speaking to Trevol an person that has done nothing but be nice to you. Try to understand you view.

This is the first thing you wake and do. You go a few day's nice and then you wake up with anger and log into the BB and try to provoke exactly what I am giving you now.

However, today all your posts are littered with un- christ like things.

I will just report you, like I have been.

I hope you take this and everyone else's admonishments to heart and change your ways and respect others.

( calling or insinuating someone is not a Christian, Cultic an embracing the anti Christ is against the forum rules )

 

[The Biblicist]

I was not necessarily referring to the Cap's but all the other horrible things you say to people.

This is a forum for those who hold basic orthodoxy. The Trinity is a required basic orthodox beleif. This man denies the Trinity among many other things. I am surprised that those who are unitarian in their view of God are allowed on this forum.

This is the first thing you wake and do.

Only someone claiming to have omniscience could make such a statement as this. Are you God among us? You have no way to prove this statement! You cannot read my heart or know my intentions.

I will tell you what can be shown though. Those complaining and making these charges all have one thing in common. They cannot respond to simple contextual based evidences and so attack the person presenting the evidence. This is Satan's old trick from memorial.

You go a few day's nice and then you wake up with anger and log into the BB and try to provoke exactly what I am giving you now.

You are lying through your teeth. You have no way of knowing how I wake up or what are my thoughts or motives or anything else.

However, today all your posts are littered with un- christ like things.

For example??????????????

I will just report you, like I have been.

Praise the Lord oh my soul - Mt. 5:13

I

hope you take this and everyone else's admonishments to heart and change your ways and respect others.

Not a chance! I have nothing to repent of! These are fabricated charges.

( calling or insinuating someone is not a Christian, Cultic an embracing the anti Christ is against the forum rules )

So you confess that those who reject the nature of God - His triune nature are Christians - Jn. 17:3?? You confess that those who reject Jesus Christ is "LORD" = Jehovah in the flesh are Christians? He denies both.

 

[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.

Wherever the truth is brought there will be division as a result. The light is always rejected by darkness. Wherever Paul went he turned the world upside down and division and debate always pursued as that is the nature of truth in direct connection with error. There can be no peace between the two or between those who embrace truth versus error.

Satan's tactic is to demand no one can make absolutes. He generalizes that none can know all truth as though some truth can be known, some absolutes can be known. Satan's favorite tactic is "that is your interpretation" when he and his servants cannot respond by sound hermeneutics. When that does not work he attacks the person who presents the truth and makes it personal rather than doctrinal.

 

[DHK]

People and the moderation have been telling him this since he arrived on this forum and even has been given infractions for it. However, when people get coaxed into it the moderation can do very little. Just ignore him like many do or as you have done continue with grace and scripture and REPORT him. That is what I was warned to do. Just REPORT him and hope that the moderation gives him another infraction or he is banned from harassing people on this forum. Either way Good luck.

Look:
Biblicist is not the topic of this thread. If anyone should receive an infraction it would be you, for personal attacks on others and especially derailing the thread.
The OP is "The Source of False Doctrine."
Please post to the OP instead of complaining about other posters.

 

[TisMe]

Look:
Biblicist is not the topic of this thread. If anyone should receive an infraction it would be you, for personal attacks on others and especially derailing the thread.
The OP is "The Source of False Doctrine."
Please post to the OP instead of complaining about other posters.

You are correct, I should keep to the OP, my apologies. I will take it a step further and not respond to any post biblicists creates this day further and continue to report him to the Administrators.

Thank you, for opening my eyes to my fault. I should not get pulled into such a person.

~ TisMe

 

[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.

Now that we are back on track. Let me make a few more comments in regard to Jope's position.

1. God is not the author of Confusion - he will not inspire the use of OT scriptuers out of their context. If you think New Testament writers pulled words, phrases, verses out of context then God is the author of confusion.

2. Rare words that are not used anywhere else in scripture never affect any essentail doctrine or practice.

3. Rare words can be interpreted by their immediate context to get their intended sense. Ephesians 5:3-4 is an example that shows from context that Paul is not referring to a postive type of "convenience" but a negative type. The adjective "not" demonstrates this. The last phrase in verse 3 demonstrates this.

 

[Jope]

Most make a distinction between "apostolic" fathers "church Father's."

But you didn't in your post. Here's what you said:

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.

And people identify Justin as a Church Father and an Apostolic Father:

Justin Maryry was among the "apostolic" fathers. However, he too was heretical in several areas.

Whether or not Justin Martyr had erred in some areas is beside the point I was getting at. You said:

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.

You distinguished between those before the Church Fathers and the Church Fathers, and said that the former were persecuted and killed by Rome.

Justin Martyr was a Church Father who was killed by Rome.

You're playing the sophist and switching between what you've previously said...

Oh well, just as long as you don't go saying that no Church Father was persecuted and killed by Rome, I'm cool. What's a man to do when he sees people making things up contrary to history? Just sit back and let the sophist say on? Nope.

 

[Jope]

Now that we are back on track. Let me make a few more comments in regard to Jope's position.

1. God is not the author of Confusion - he will not inspire the use of OT scriptuers out of their context. If you think New Testament writers pulled words, phrases, verses out of context then God is the author of confusion.

So God can't deny authorship of confusion and have mysteries that He reveals by the scriptures (Rom. 16:26) at some other point later on in history after those scriptures, unorganized and unchronological in character are written?

Have you read the scriptures I gave reference to yet? Psalm 69 and Matthew 2:16-18 and etc.?

It's one thing to disagree with what a poster is saying, it's another to actually read and consider his argument and give an answer to it.

2. Rare words that are not used anywhere else in scripture never affect any essentail doctrine or practice.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine. 2Timothy 3:16-17. Why not delve into figuring out the ambiguities?

It's important that ambiguities are accounted for in the apology of the pre-trib rapture doctrine. The trumpet reference in 1Corinthians 15 is an ambiguous verse that post-tribs use to argue their point. Without an apology for the ambiguous trumpet, the pre-trib rapture doctrine is compromised. And the pre-trib rapture doctrine certainly affects practice of the Christian, i.e., whether or not He should have a constantly waiting Spirit for the Lord to appear (2Tim. 4:8).

3. Rare words can be interpreted by their immediate context to get their intended sense. Ephesians 5:3-4 is an example that shows from context that Paul is not referring to a postive type of "convenience" but a negative type. The adjective "not" demonstrates this. The last phrase in verse 3 demonstrates this.

Sigh. What's a man to do when someone doesn't read his posts and doesn't understand his point?

I stated, about Ephesians 5:3-4, that extra-biblical literature lets us know that this stand-alone word, can be in reference to word or deed (revealing more of what Paul meant when he used that word).

If you read my post and understood it, you wouldn't have written this third point.

 

[Jope]

For emphasis, not anger!

Allow me to introduce you to the italic emphasis

 

[Jope]

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

You're parroting me.

 

[Jope]

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.

True, but I never said contrary...

By the way, do you believe that the Apostle chose his quotation from Aratus randomly? (Just trying to figure out your post).

 

[The Biblicist]

But you didn't in your post. Here's what you said:



And people identify Justin as a Church Father and an Apostolic Father:



Whether or not Justin Martyr had erred in some areas is beside the point I was getting at. You said:



You distinguished between those before the Church Fathers and the Church Fathers, and said that the former were persecuted and killed by Rome.

Justin Martyr was a Church Father who was killed by Rome.

You're playing the sophist and switching between what you've previously said...

Oh well, just as long as you don't go saying that no Church Father was persecuted and killed by Rome, I'm cool. What's a man to do when he sees people making things up contrary to history? Just sit back and let the sophist say on? Nope.

The bottom line is still the same. I said he was heretical and a heretic in regard to the doctrine of salvation - baptismal regeneratist.

 

[The Biblicist]

So God can't deny authorship of confusion and have mysteries that He reveals by the scriptures (Rom. 16:26) at some other point later on in history after those scriptures, unorganized and unchronological in character are written?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Have you read the scriptures I gave reference to yet? Psalm 69 and Matthew 2:16-18 and etc.?

What post? I could not find these scriptues in any post on this thread. I did read the scriptues but I don't see anything that makes your point in these scriptures.

It's one thing to disagree with what a poster is saying, it's another to actually read and consider his argument and give an answer to it.

What post did I ever respond to these two scriptures or disagree with them. I don't even understand what point you are attempting to make with them after I read them just now.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine. 2Timothy 3:16-17. Why not delve into figuring out the ambiguities?

What are "ambiguities" to some are not to others. I have no trouble looking into any text.

It's important that ambiguities are accounted for in the apology of the pre-trib rapture doctrine. The trumpet reference in 1Corinthians 15 is an ambiguous verse that post-tribs use to argue their point. Without an apology for the ambiguous trumpet, the pre-trib rapture doctrine is compromised. And the pre-trib rapture doctrine certainly affects practice of the Christian, i.e., whether or not He should have a constantly waiting Spirit for the Lord to appear (2Tim. 4:8).

The Pre-trib rapture is not taught anywhere in scripture IF context is the final guide.

I stated, about Ephesians 5:3-4, that extra-biblical literature lets us know that this stand-alone word, can be in reference to word or deed (revealing more of what Paul meant when he used that word).

If you read my post and understood it, you wouldn't have written this third point.

I understood your point, but just disagreed with it. Extrabiblical literature is not essential to understand anything essential to Biblical doctrine or practice including the word translated "convenience" in Ephesians 5:4.

 

[The Biblicist]

True, but I never said contrary...

By the way, do you believe that the Apostle chose his quotation from Aratus randomly? (Just trying to figure out your post).

Paul was a well educated man. The Holy Spirit brought this passage to his mind as additional support for his point. That does not mean the man he quoted wrote under inspiration or that anyone a Bible writer quotes was writing by inspiration.

 

[The Biblicist]

You're parroting me.

No, I am not parroting you. I am simply reinforcing my own position that extrabiblical materials are not essential to understand the Bible as the Bible provides a self-defining context. Paul said the "scriptures" are able to make one wise unto salvation not extrabiblical materials. Paul said the scriptures are complete for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness NOT scripture PLUS any other writings. Paul said study the scriptues not study the scriptures PLUS other writings. You are denying the sufficiency of the scriptures in and of themselves to be furnish all that is necessary for the man of God for what they were designed to provide.