What must it be like -- to be wrong on a doctrinal POV?

[BobRyan]

On Every subject from the RCC to the Deity of Christ to the need to read the Bible instead of swallowing tradition hook-line-and-sinker, to trusting the accuracy of God's account of Creation week... People are arguing in favor of opposing views on THIS board!

It does not take rocket science to know that "somebody is wrong in all those threads". (but not the same person each time -- except in a few rare cases).

So that raises the question of the "psychology of being wrong" - what does it "appear" like from the standpoint of the person that IS wrong.

In Matt 7 we have a good example -- those who ARE wrong are genuinely convinced that they are right. They say "Lord Lord did we not.... do all those things... in your name?". They do not say "hey you caught us fair and square -- we were just playing a trick on you -- I meant to be wrong the whole time".

(At the same time we know from JUDE that God WILL then CONVICT them of ALL their ungodly deeds - but that is another story)

Look at the Sadducees in Matt 22 where Christ proves them wrong -- puts them "to silence" and even their enemies see they were soundly defeated. YET they do not "start believing in the Rev 20:4-5 1Thess 4 FUTURE resurrection of the DEAD in Christ (who rise FIRST) and so the Sadducees become Christians in the Matt 22 account".

Do you really think they are saying "I really really want to be wrong and today is not a good day for me"??? I think they say the same thing the Matt 7 people say "WE are on God's side -- the other guy is dead wrong".

BUT I think the fact that "they are silenced" simply shows that even in the deluded state they know their argument is not doing well. perhaps they think "That other guy is really making it hard for me to make my case for the good, right and true doctrinal view of this subject"

Perhaps they just feel "frustrated and inconvenienced" as they detect their argument is not fairing well -- yet they still see themselves as "absolutely right".

What say you -- how is it when you are wrong and don't know it??:laugh:

(Heisenberg anyone?)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Those spoken of in Matthew 7 are not an example of Christians with doctrinal errors. Jesus clearly tells them that He "never knew" them. Born of God believers are known personally just as sheep are known by their shepherd. Jesus makes this absolutely clear............

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Never should one reference Matt 7 as an example of true sheep who have been in some way disobedient children. The scripture makes very clear that Jesus' sheep are known by Him. In Matt 7 Jesus makes it very clear that He has "never" known these pretenders who were obviously just using His name for personal gains.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Hope of Glory]

I have a feeling that the elder at the church that I once left would fall into that category. He stated explicitly, "I don't care what the Bible says...", then went on to explain how he let the Holy Spirit tell him the truth.

BTW, Steaver, are you assuming that all saved people are sheep?

 

[steaver]

BTW, Steaver, are you assuming that all saved people are sheep?

No, not at all. I know from the scriptures that all saved people are Jesus' sheep.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Those spoken of in Matthew 7 are not an example of Christians with doctrinal errors. Jesus clearly tells them that He "never knew" them. Born of God believers are known personally just as sheep are known by their shepherd. Jesus makes this absolutely clear............

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

You have missed the point UNLESS you are trying to argue that the only people that are saved are those that agree with you alone on all the topoics I listed and the others where people are in debate in this area.

The question still needs to be answered - for it is clearl that even the positions of the saved "differ" and are in contradiction to each other.

Secondly the context for Matt 7 shows that Christ is not speaking to atheists or pagans but RATHER to the chosen people of God -

Never should one reference Matt 7 as an example of true sheep who have been in some way disobedient children. The scripture makes very clear that Jesus' sheep are known by Him. In Matt 7 Jesus makes it very clear that He has "never" known these pretenders who were obviously just using His name for personal gains.

Jesus said "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the kingdom of heaven -- but he who DOES the will of My Father" in Matt 7.

His argument is not that their doctrine is wrong but that their practice does not match their pretended faith.

The question asked in the "OP" is not about the salvation of the "wrong person" or the person holding to doctrinal error. The question is that GIVEN that all topics are "debated" then what is the psychology of "being wrong" -- for example how do you view yourself when you are wrong but keep supposing you are right. AS in the case of the Sadducees who appear to conclude that "they are having a bad day at the debate forum" in proving their point in Matt 22 instead of concluding "well then we must be wrong".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have a feeling that the elder at the church that I once left would fall into that category. He stated explicitly, "I don't care what the Bible says...", then went on to explain how he let the Holy Spirit tell him the truth.

That may be the logical place that "clinging to wrong" leads someone - but in the case of Matt 22 and Matt 7 I don't that that these people were thinking "Our view is not supported in scripture but we believe it anyway" the way the RC members respond when we challenge them on Purgatory and prayers to the dead for example.

The question is for the instances where you are wrong but appear to be having trouble seeing it - yet you clearly see that your argument is not fairing well in the exchanges. The Bible appears to offer inconvenient point after point in opposition. The way the Sadducees would have viewed their own problems in Matt 22 as "Christ put them to silence" on the subject of the future resurrection of the saints and their stubborn rejection of that Bible truth..

 

[J. Jump]

yet you clearly see that your argument is not fairing well in the exchanges.

This is an interesting thread Bob, and not surprisingly it hasn't gotten much response

I don't think there are many people that fall into the above category. This is clearly evident here on the board. You can show someone how Scripture disagrees with ther position, but they continue to hold on to what they believe despite what Scripture says. They don't see clearly that their arguments don't hold water.

And this can be said by both sides. So the bottom line is that we can talk until we're blue in the face and get no further than square one, but just as you have pointed out there are going to be some surprised folks when they stand before the Judge.

The arrangment of the Greek text is such that these folks were expecting to receive a positive answer from the Lord. You correctly point out that these were not unsaved folks. But they clearly didn't receive the positive response they were looking for, and there are going to be a great many saved individuals that are going to be surprised by the response that they receive on that day depsite the many "good" works they "thought" they had done in their lifetime.

 

[billwald]

Why is this list called "baptistboard?" Because a minority baptized believers reject infant baptism. Why does this minority position insist that only it correctly interprets scripture? Why does the Holy Spirit give different information to Baptists? Or is the Bible insufficient for a clear understanding of that which is required?

For 1100 years "Christian" was defined by the ecumenical creeds? Why has the Holy Spirit caused Baptists to reject the ecumenical creeds while causing the majority to accept them?

How does Bapitst theory about rejecting ecumenical tradition differ from LDS theory of rejecting ecumenical tradition?

 

[Hope of Glory]

If you read ancient ecuminical writings, you will find that they are at wild variance with today's ecuminical creeds.

Why the difference?

 

[BobRyan]

This is an interesting thread Bob, and not surprisingly it hasn't gotten much response

I don't think there are many people that fall into the above category. This is clearly evident here on the board. You can show someone how Scripture disagrees with ther position, but they continue to hold on to what they believe despite what Scripture says. They don't see clearly that their arguments don't hold water.

Actually - in a clumsy way possibly - that is my point.

Just like the Sadducees in Matt 22 were likely NOT saying to themsevles "Hey Jesus just proved that our position really has no merrit at all" after the discussion with Christ about the resurrection.

But we DO see that they were "put to silence" in terms of having nothing but railing accusation to respond to Christ - since all objective argument had failed them.

From their POV they would not view this as the failing of their argument RATHER they would be telling themselves "he is a tricky opponent. He spins the bible to his advantage. We need to be better prepared next time"...

You know - the same self-talk that people here use when their argument clearly runs aground (as seen by truly objective observes) and of course they would never SEE that it has run aground - but they would respond the same as the Sadducees.

My argument is that since this is HUMAN behavior and not simply Sadducee behavior -- shouldn't WE start getting a clue to learn how to see those gaps in our own argument?

Why keep playing the role of the blind Sadducee time after time after time?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Why is this list called "baptistboard?" Because a minority baptized believers reject infant baptism. Why does this minority position insist that only it correctly interprets scripture? Why does the Holy Spirit give different information to Baptists? Or is the Bible insufficient for a clear understanding of that which is required?

...tradition differ from LDS theory of rejecting ecumenical tradition?

Case in point. NO texts show infant baptism or sprinkling or baptism without repentance. YET those who pactice those traditions simply view that as "an inconvenient truth. Something to be ignored while debating if at all possible".

Which get's to the point of the OP

 

[J. Jump]

Why keep playing the role of the blind Sadducee time after time after time?

Well there are a number of possible reasons. For pastors having to enter the pulpit and admit that something they had been teaching their congregation and that is held as church tradition is actually incorrect is probably too much for many of them to endure.

Some of the things that would have to admit to would drive the crowds away and they wouldn't be abe to fill as many pews, build as many buildings, have as big a salary, and the list could go on and on.

Same could hold true with missionaires or Sunday School/Bible study teachers.

For lay people it would mean that a pastor or commentator or Bible study teacher/SS teacher they hold high on a pedestal would be brought down if they were to admit to something being incorrect.

I don't really know why else a lay person wouldn't want to admit to Truth.

 

[steaver]

My argument is that since this is HUMAN behavior and not simply Sadducee behavior -- shouldn't WE start getting a clue to learn how to see those gaps in our own argument?

Why keep playing the role of the blind Sadducee time after time after time?

in Christ,

Bob

Since I am sure that you include your own self and some of your own positions as among those you speak of, how would you answer your own question?

Here is a start, a "gap" as you put it in your position....

Jesus said, "I NEVER KNEW YOU" in Matt 7. How then do you close the gap in your position that these people Jesus speaks of are "saved" knowing that a "saved" person is indeed known in a very personal way by Jesus because they have Jesus Christ living in them? They must have been regenerated at one point in their lives. Remember, Jesus said "NEVER" knew them.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Hope of Glory]

Well there are a number of possible reasons. For pastors having to enter the pulpit and admit that something they had been teaching their congregation and that is held as church tradition is actually incorrect is probably too much for many of them to endure.

I have had two pastor friends, one Baptist, one Nazarene, who hold Kingdom truths as being Scriptural, admit that although they believe in the Kingdom, they will not preach it from the pulpit, because they would lose their jobs.

I lost a job once because I would not violate Federal law (OSHA). Going along with the company would have been the easy way. The same holds true in an assembly: Taking a difficult stand will lose your job (prestige, etc.), so just go along with the flow (the easy way), and no one gets hurt. At least not until later.

 

[mes228]

Doctrine

Bob, This is an amazing thread. Not one Biblical point has been "won" by the Baptist/Fundamentalist on any of these threads I've read. You've been ripped to shreds by Agnus & Chemnitz and others, yet you are utterly blind to it. Reminds me of the scripture that "if your eye is filled with darkness - How great is that darkness." I find it incredible that anyone honestly seeking "truth" can be so blinded to the "immersion" only post. The only answer is "brainwashing". It's like dealing with Palestinian children who no matter what, or how, cling to the what they were taught.
The other side has at least several times the scriptures on their side, have to "infer" nothing as to meaning. And the preponderance of history is clearly against the 'immersion" only position. I'd guess that 98% or so of Christians that have ever lived have not limited Baptism to immersion only. You tell me how it feels to be utterly wrong and unable to admit it. Is it un-christian to tell a sick man he's ill?? I hope not. Your ill Bob and so are several others.

 

[steaver]

(Bob).....Secondly the context for Matt 7 shows that Christ is not speaking to atheists or pagans but RATHER to the chosen people of God -

Whom Jesus is speaking "to" is not the message. The message is whom Jesus is speaking "of". The answer to that is He is speaking "to" the multitudes of people "of" those He "never knew" even though they will claim that they done many works and wonders in His name.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

(Bob)...His argument is not that their doctrine is wrong but that their practice does not match their pretended faith.

We agree! The saved do not have "pretended faith". Only genuine faith saves.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

.......for example how do you view yourself when you are wrong but keep supposing you are right. AS in the case of the Sadducees who appear to conclude that "they are having a bad day at the debate forum" in proving their point in Matt 22 instead of concluding "well then we must be wrong".

in Christ,

Bob

I have had those "Sadducees" moments in the past when I was first learning doctrines. When I found myself in that position I went back to deeper study and much prayer. Sometimes I changed my position because I was shown to be wrong. Sometimes I was right but just wasn't knowledgeable enough to have been placing myself into a debate over it. I got my butt whipped! :laugh:

Now, I have learned to only engage in those debates over doctrines that God has shown me through much prayer and study how to be viewed correctly. These include "born of God" or "born again", "eternal security" or "osas", "salvation of the soul", just to mention a few of the major ones. I am always considering an opponants points but they have yet to hold up against scripture interpreting scripture. I believe I have heard most all arguments, but I am always looking for new ones. If something new comes up I will investigate it thoroughly, but so far nothing I have seen has proven out in scripture.

I never "suppose" I am right. If i "believe" i am right it is because of much prayer and study and because opposing arguments do not hold up against scripture interpretations.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

The arrangment of the Greek text is such that these folks were expecting to receive a positive answer from the Lord. You correctly point out that these were not unsaved folks. But they clearly didn't receive the positive response they were looking for, and there are going to be a great many saved individuals that are going to be surprised by the response that they receive on that day depsite the many "good" works they "thought" they had done in their lifetime.

Jesus "never knew" these born of God new creations whom have the Spirit of Christ living within them?

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Mat 7:23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Jhn 10:27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Jhn 10:28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Speaking to "God's chosen people" Jesus said.........Jhn 10:26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Scripture interprets scripture.



God Bless! :thumbs: