The Sin of Dispensationalism
- Thread starter blhowes
- Start date
- Status
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I know we've discussed this before (but that's fine) and if I recall correctly, most here weren't ready to call dispensationsalism heresy. As for it being sin, well I personally believe that if you see the errors in it and refuse to give it up then it is a sin. I know too many wonderful, Godly Christians who are dispensational to believe it is a sin. Should be a good discussion though!
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I mean still believing it! I know several people who stubbornly hold onto a belief they cannot defend. Dispensationalism grips people in a way that I have never seen. Some even think it's a sin to consider other eschtalogical views! Some believe "true" Christians are dispensational. Much like cults do, many dispensational teachers tell their followers to avoid other views as if defending their eternal souls. The major angle they use is that all other views are anti-semetic.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Food for thought: Misinterpreting God's Word
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Thanks for passing the meat and potatoes. Good stuff to think about.
I certainly agree with what's expressed in the catechism.
I started reading the scripture references given for item 21, and at first glance its not clear (to me) how the Ecclesiastes references support the conclusion. I guess that's where the "thought" in the phrase "Food for Thought" comes in.
...giving it more thought,
Bob
BaptistCanuk
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hold on a second here. Where does the BIBLE say it is a sin to misinterpret Scripture? We are told to study to show ourselves approved. That says nothing about it being a "sin" for misinterpreting it. If I'm going to sin by misinterpreting it then maybe I shouldn't read it and just leave it up to my pastor to preach it. Then it will be on his head if he gets it wrong, not mine. Sound like a plan?
I'm sorry but I just get very irritated when someone (even those who wrote confessions) presume to say that it is a SIN to misinterpret Scripture. We are human, we will make mistakes in interpretation. To say such a thing sounds cultic in itself.
Anyways, on to the topic. Dispensationalism is just another system of interpreting eschatology. Since people on all sides use Scripture to defend their position it is my opinion that we cannot be sure. We are to look for the Lord's return, not be "sure" of when it is going to be.
I'm sorry but I just get very irritated when someone (even those who wrote confessions) presume to say that it is a SIN to misinterpret Scripture. We are human, we will make mistakes in interpretation. To say such a thing sounds cultic in itself.
Anyways, on to the topic. Dispensationalism is just another system of interpreting eschatology. Since people on all sides use Scripture to defend their position it is my opinion that we cannot be sure. We are to look for the Lord's return, not be "sure" of when it is going to be.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Bob,
Thanks for raising the issue of the verses cited by the Assembly in support of the proposition that it is sinful to misinterpret, misapply or pervert the Word of God.
Further study leads me to conclude that the proof texts given in the source that I used for that thread (A Puritans Mind) are incorrect.
The correct numbering from the list is really 22-24 rather than 21-23.
That will make a big difference in studying what the Assembly is teaching here.
22. Matt. 5:21-48 (misinterpreting)
23. Ezek 13:22 (misapplying)
24. II Peter 3:16; Matt. 22:24-31 (perverting)
Sorry for the confusion.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by Ivan
Originally posted by gwine
Can anyone ever beat you to the punch line, Andrew?
Not if you have dial-up!
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
BaptistCanuk
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree with you Joshua. But a misinterpretation when one is reverently trying to study the Word is a mistake. Perversion is when someone purposely misinterprets it to make it say what he wants or to deceive others. We should read with utmost reverence and carefulness, absolutely. But many people from different denominations do that as well and look where we are. Paul says, "we see through a glass darkly.
I know. I was being facetious.
It still doesn't say it is so. One cannot make a declaration of something that is not declared. At least when it's as serious an issue as sin.
Yes we will be even more careful and reverent. However, we see through a glass darkly and can make a mistake in interpretation. God knows our hearts. To say that someone that is seriously trying to interpret Scripture correctly but makes a mistake is committing sin, I don't think so. I don't see where it says that in Scripture. We have to be told whether we can use instruments in worship before we can do so but we can decide something is a sin when it hasn't been declared to be so?
I agree. But I'm not certain that dispensationalism is wrong. What I am certain of is that Jesus is coming back. Gotta go, God bless.Anyways, on to the topic. Dispensationalism is just another system of interpreting eschatology. Since people on all sides use Scripture to defend their position it is my opinion that we cannot be sure. We are to look for the Lord's return, not be "sure" of when it is going to be.
The eschatology of Dispensationalism is merely a bi-product of Dispensationalism's unbiblical distinction between Israel (the believing remnant) and the Church. And concerning eschatology we may be unable to be sure of what IS truth, but I do think we can be certain of what things AREN'T truth. "We are to look for the Lord's return....", even so, come Lord Jesus!
{Moderator's Note: edited to reflect quotes properly}
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by joshua]
further edited by me due to my grammatical error
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistCanuk]
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Just one quick thought regarding misinterpretting the scriptures being a sin, focusing on that with regard to dispensationalism. To many, baptistic teachings are a misinterpretation of the scriptures, just as to others the paedo teaching is a misinterpretation of the scriptures. How could we justify (if we do) calling dispensationalism a sin because it misinterpets the scriptures without using that same standard in the baptist/paedo debate?
Edit:
Maybe we do. Holding to baptistic or paedobaptistic teachings is sin, right?
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by blhowes]
Edit:
Maybe we do. Holding to baptistic or paedobaptistic teachings is sin, right?
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by blhowes]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Jonathan Gerstner writes in 'Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth':
I will add, dispensationalist hold to the idea that the Jews worship the same God as we do. Jesus Himself said that if you have the Son, then you have the father. If you don't have the Son, well then............
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]
I will add, dispensationalist hold to the idea that the Jews worship the same God as we do. Jesus Himself said that if you have the Son, then you have the father. If you don't have the Son, well then............
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Hold on a second here. Where does the BIBLE say it is a sin to misinterpret Scripture? We are told to study to show ourselves approved. That says nothing about it being a "sin" for misinterpreting it. If I'm going to sin by misinterpreting it then maybe I shouldn't read it and just leave it up to my pastor to preach it. Then it will be on his head if he gets it wrong, not mine. Sound like a plan?
I'm sorry but I just get very irritated when someone (even those who wrote confessions) presume to say that it is a SIN to misinterpret Scripture. We are human, we will make mistakes in interpretation. To say such a thing sounds cultic in itself.
Anyways, on to the topic. Dispensationalism is just another system of interpreting eschatology. Since people on all sides use Scripture to defend their position it is my opinion that we cannot be sure. We are to look for the Lord's return, not be "sure" of when it is going to be.
Brian,
What exactly do false teachers do?
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.
The essence of sin is that it's a heart issue. For all I know, people who believe in dispensational theology may be *nominal* dispensationalists. Would it be correct to correct them? Sure. But I don't know how strongly these folks hold to their eschatology, or how much it influences their theology. So I'm not ready to condemn them for it, just as I hope they would not be ready to condemn me for, say, being a five point Calvinist (unless they knew me well. And I don't know many dispensationalists personally).
I think teachers and preachers and others (including bad fiction writers, that is, writers of bad fiction) are held to a higher standard than their flocks, because they have higher responsibilities for reinforcing bad theology if they do. Look at all the hubbub re: the Da Vinci Code. Didn't the _Left Behind_ series essentially do the same thing, albeit pro-dispensationalism vs. anti-Christianity?
I think teachers and preachers and others (including bad fiction writers, that is, writers of bad fiction) are held to a higher standard than their flocks, because they have higher responsibilities for reinforcing bad theology if they do. Look at all the hubbub re: the Da Vinci Code. Didn't the _Left Behind_ series essentially do the same thing, albeit pro-dispensationalism vs. anti-Christianity?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is a tough one in this day and age. It is tremendous error at a minimum, but do we hold the confusions Satan enters into the church at X time period ago to today's saints with the same vigor as those who introduced them? Holding Scofield accountable of his time, or the anabaptist at their time is one thing, but what about those today at various levels of growth and learning that grew up seduced by it...including ourselves on several doctrinal levels?
To me it is more correct and graceful to actually call dispensationalism heresy itself than it is to judge a man in the midst of learning and still within its grasp as sinning. If it is a sin, it is in that case a sin of ignorance and I for one commit many sins of ignorance every hour, minute and second.
It seems better to look at the teaching and address it dissconnected from saying those holding to it, I speak of lay persons here, in ignorance are sinning in that sense. Now, teachers that remain in it are a different question. Today the tendancy in the name of "peace", and "niceness" we let too "preachers and teachers" have their way. We wouldn't let our own family and children be seduced by it anymore than rank atheism, but we do let other hold to it. And there is this tendency to be too soft on "teachers". We call say Benny Hinn a false teacher, one that a blind bat could discern, even unbelievers know that, while we let the Rick Warren's and Joel Olstenes of the world off of the hook. This by taking the foolish approach of "chewing on the meat and spit out the bones". But the falacy of this lies in the fact that such teachings don't just CONTAIN ELEMENTS of error among truth, but rather are BASED on error. Paul never says, "eat the meat and spit out the bones", he says discern the true doctrine.
But our era of political niceness is why when we read the polemic language of say Luther, Calvin or Spurgeon we say, "Whew, that's pretty harsh." But not so for they saw what was at stake! I would rather have 10,000 of those men so that I could know truth, than the "well we interpret it this way" relativism of today, but we can "get together on the essentials". But in our aspirin pain-free society nobody wants to deal with the hard truth.
Ldh
To me it is more correct and graceful to actually call dispensationalism heresy itself than it is to judge a man in the midst of learning and still within its grasp as sinning. If it is a sin, it is in that case a sin of ignorance and I for one commit many sins of ignorance every hour, minute and second.
It seems better to look at the teaching and address it dissconnected from saying those holding to it, I speak of lay persons here, in ignorance are sinning in that sense. Now, teachers that remain in it are a different question. Today the tendancy in the name of "peace", and "niceness" we let too "preachers and teachers" have their way. We wouldn't let our own family and children be seduced by it anymore than rank atheism, but we do let other hold to it. And there is this tendency to be too soft on "teachers". We call say Benny Hinn a false teacher, one that a blind bat could discern, even unbelievers know that, while we let the Rick Warren's and Joel Olstenes of the world off of the hook. This by taking the foolish approach of "chewing on the meat and spit out the bones". But the falacy of this lies in the fact that such teachings don't just CONTAIN ELEMENTS of error among truth, but rather are BASED on error. Paul never says, "eat the meat and spit out the bones", he says discern the true doctrine.
But our era of political niceness is why when we read the polemic language of say Luther, Calvin or Spurgeon we say, "Whew, that's pretty harsh." But not so for they saw what was at stake! I would rather have 10,000 of those men so that I could know truth, than the "well we interpret it this way" relativism of today, but we can "get together on the essentials". But in our aspirin pain-free society nobody wants to deal with the hard truth.
Ldh
I am not sure whether dispensationalism is a sin, but I do know that I am no longer able to believe it. I held to the dispensational line for twenty-four years ('79-'03). No longer. I am convinced by the overwhelming evidence of scripture that it is a deficient theological system. I am incredulous that there are dispensational Calvinist's. Yes, there is another thread on that topic. When I began to understand the doctrines of sovereign grace I immediately began to question dispensationalism. It took five years for me to abandon Darbyism, but eventually I did. This too, is by the grace of God.
I have a question. If a person is no longer a dispensationalist, does that automatically make them a covenant theologian? Is there some "middle" position? I am almost ready to admit that I am a covenant theologian. The words are stuck in my throat, I just can't say them. Perhaps it is the last vestige of dispensationalism in its death throes.
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Bill,
Experiences like yours and not unlike mine (though much shorter, I've only not been an atheist/agnostic since 1997) are exactly why I think we have to at least be careful and not just throw a "gernade in the hole".
If someone just fires out there, "Dispensationalism is sin." Well, that's a gernade and BAM the defense walls come down immediately. And sometimes if we just say, "X is heresey." That can happen too, the context of the statement can set its nuiance. We cannot get around teaching with the purpose of giving the light of the Gospel for the benefit of the other in a greater way, as opposed to "teaching" with the intent of "showing I'm right and your wrong". A lesson I learned late in my years to date as a Christian, and I still struggle to be honest (especially in family circles) with it as I suppose many of us do.
It seems to go to this: Does one think accurate doctrine is FOR the sake of being "accurate" - in other words just another legal and fallen religion though structurally biblical. OR that doctrine is FOR the giving and guardian of the Gospel (pure Gospel) so as to save and preserve the people of God. The difference between these two is not the structure or elements, because this can be identical, but rather the difference lies in their purpose. One is just another "working my way religiously to heaven" the other is "Gospel promoting/protecting". To me it goes to James' warning, "You believe there is one God, wonderful so do the demons." The doctrine is accurate but the belief is one of affirming the truthfulness, not a belief that says, "I'm trusting in God for salvation". The trust element is missing.
Blessings,
Larry
Experiences like yours and not unlike mine (though much shorter, I've only not been an atheist/agnostic since 1997) are exactly why I think we have to at least be careful and not just throw a "gernade in the hole".
If someone just fires out there, "Dispensationalism is sin." Well, that's a gernade and BAM the defense walls come down immediately. And sometimes if we just say, "X is heresey." That can happen too, the context of the statement can set its nuiance. We cannot get around teaching with the purpose of giving the light of the Gospel for the benefit of the other in a greater way, as opposed to "teaching" with the intent of "showing I'm right and your wrong". A lesson I learned late in my years to date as a Christian, and I still struggle to be honest (especially in family circles) with it as I suppose many of us do.
It seems to go to this: Does one think accurate doctrine is FOR the sake of being "accurate" - in other words just another legal and fallen religion though structurally biblical. OR that doctrine is FOR the giving and guardian of the Gospel (pure Gospel) so as to save and preserve the people of God. The difference between these two is not the structure or elements, because this can be identical, but rather the difference lies in their purpose. One is just another "working my way religiously to heaven" the other is "Gospel promoting/protecting". To me it goes to James' warning, "You believe there is one God, wonderful so do the demons." The doctrine is accurate but the belief is one of affirming the truthfulness, not a belief that says, "I'm trusting in God for salvation". The trust element is missing.
Blessings,
Larry
It would appear to me that there can exist within the church a measure of disagreement without each of the disagreeing parties believing that the other is in the state of sin.
If we are to consider that if another who disagrees with us in any area of biblical interpretation is in a state of sin, would we not then need to separate from all whom we perceive to be in error? We could engage then only in discussions for the purpose of correction, but after a couple admonitions we would then need to regard them as heretics.
I have over the course of my Christian experience constantly been studying the Scriptures. I have deviated from many positions that I once held and I suspect that if I live to see a number of additional days, I shall not be surprised if I find myself changing my views and interpretations in other areas as well. Was I sinning against God in those days in which I held what are contrary views? In a couple areas, perhaps, for in a few of the areas a change of view led to a change in practice. For example, I recently have come to the conclusion that I should not be seeking to obtain usury (or interest). When I came to this conclusion, I changed a former practice.
Back in those days when I was Arminian and dispensational, I still determined to live my life in accord with the Scriptures. I was in error, certainly, but my error was not such that it was leading me to do those things that were contrary to the law of God.
As I consider biblical conduct among those with whom I disagree in an age in which we have myriad of biblical interpretation, I tend to look primarily at the logical outcome of the teaching. Generally, passages that pertain to false teaching seem to be those that are doing one of three things: teaching another gospel, denying the Person of Christ, and unecessarily binding the consciences of others.
The subject of eschatology is a difficult one. I have not settled on every detail, although these days find me gravitating toward a preterist interepretation of eschatology. I am perhaps the only one in my church that holds to that view, the rest preferring other views (including even a few Dispensationalists!).
We should strive to pursue what we perceive to be the truth if we are able to acknowledge within that pursuit that we are not the final arbitrators of that truth. We are finite and there needs to be a sense of humility as we seek to defend the truth, being able to discern between those teachings that are indeed heretical and ought to be exposed from those that are of the nuisance variety that we can let our love cover.
I don't believe that most forms of dispensationalism are going to lead believers to sin against God. Some of the hyper views may go to far, but I think in the main you are going to find most dispensationalists who are truly converted are going to be striving to living godly lives.
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by bob]
If we are to consider that if another who disagrees with us in any area of biblical interpretation is in a state of sin, would we not then need to separate from all whom we perceive to be in error? We could engage then only in discussions for the purpose of correction, but after a couple admonitions we would then need to regard them as heretics.
I have over the course of my Christian experience constantly been studying the Scriptures. I have deviated from many positions that I once held and I suspect that if I live to see a number of additional days, I shall not be surprised if I find myself changing my views and interpretations in other areas as well. Was I sinning against God in those days in which I held what are contrary views? In a couple areas, perhaps, for in a few of the areas a change of view led to a change in practice. For example, I recently have come to the conclusion that I should not be seeking to obtain usury (or interest). When I came to this conclusion, I changed a former practice.
Back in those days when I was Arminian and dispensational, I still determined to live my life in accord with the Scriptures. I was in error, certainly, but my error was not such that it was leading me to do those things that were contrary to the law of God.
As I consider biblical conduct among those with whom I disagree in an age in which we have myriad of biblical interpretation, I tend to look primarily at the logical outcome of the teaching. Generally, passages that pertain to false teaching seem to be those that are doing one of three things: teaching another gospel, denying the Person of Christ, and unecessarily binding the consciences of others.
The subject of eschatology is a difficult one. I have not settled on every detail, although these days find me gravitating toward a preterist interepretation of eschatology. I am perhaps the only one in my church that holds to that view, the rest preferring other views (including even a few Dispensationalists!).
We should strive to pursue what we perceive to be the truth if we are able to acknowledge within that pursuit that we are not the final arbitrators of that truth. We are finite and there needs to be a sense of humility as we seek to defend the truth, being able to discern between those teachings that are indeed heretical and ought to be exposed from those that are of the nuisance variety that we can let our love cover.
I don't believe that most forms of dispensationalism are going to lead believers to sin against God. Some of the hyper views may go to far, but I think in the main you are going to find most dispensationalists who are truly converted are going to be striving to living godly lives.
[Edited on 4-30-2006 by bob]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Bob,
False teachings tend to lead to...
I agree 100%.
Back during Christmas I read Bo Giertz´s "œThe Hammer of God" and I read one statement that has stuck in my mind from the book which is one of those epiphany statements. I believe it was chapter 2 in which they were dealing with some "revivalist" over an issue. In the character´s thoughts he is recalling one of his mentor/profs warning him about the theological danger and travesty of "˜proof-texting´ versus viewing the scripture through the lens of the Gospel. When the former is done all kinds of error & disconnected theology arise.
Another thing that keeps us humble (should) is the understanding of being simultaneously sinner and saint. That is not 50/50, but 100%/100%. That is a crucial thing for a Christian to grasp, that he is 100% justified and 100% just as sinful as before both in vices and virtues POST conversion. That has quite a humbling effect. This also eliminates the wrong idea of a post conversion Christian life. This in part comes from forgetting what real sin acts from us actually are, vices & virtues, for God looks on the heart. And second, without even one sin act we are STILL condemned by virtue of being IN Adam. And third, a complete disconnect with simultaneously just & sinner "“ POST conversion, the ONLY way to be simultaneously just & sinner. The false view of "œconversion" comes from the idea of a necessary dramatic conversion experience as the only "˜real´ conversion. To wit; if you didn´t have one, a life altering distinct experience, an "œI use to do x, y & z sins & the Lord then took that away from me" experience, then the heavy implication if not explicitly stated is, "œyou are not a converted Christian". Juxtaposition that thought with 100% saint & 100% sinner ALWAYS in this life POST conversion. And juxtaposition that with Paul who as he aged said "œI´m the least of the Apostles, wretched man that I am, and I am the chief of sinners." NOT, "œI use to do"¦& the Lord took that away from me." Which bears witness to the Gospel? Paul whom I can read & see & realize, "œYes there is certain hope because of Christ even for me, being the chief of sinners myself". Or, "œWhy does not the "˜Lord take my sins away from me like the testimony of this very outwardly pretty & clean person".
A religion boils down to this; what are you saved from your sins OR the wrath of God? If the former, then ANY of man´s fallen religions and philosophical systems can give the same pseudo testimony, even those who read Oprah Winfrey´s books. Only the later requires Jesus Christ AS Christ, not another Christ which is no Christ at all.
Ldh
False teachings tend to lead to...
.
I agree 100%.
Back during Christmas I read Bo Giertz´s "œThe Hammer of God" and I read one statement that has stuck in my mind from the book which is one of those epiphany statements. I believe it was chapter 2 in which they were dealing with some "revivalist" over an issue. In the character´s thoughts he is recalling one of his mentor/profs warning him about the theological danger and travesty of "˜proof-texting´ versus viewing the scripture through the lens of the Gospel. When the former is done all kinds of error & disconnected theology arise.
Another thing that keeps us humble (should) is the understanding of being simultaneously sinner and saint. That is not 50/50, but 100%/100%. That is a crucial thing for a Christian to grasp, that he is 100% justified and 100% just as sinful as before both in vices and virtues POST conversion. That has quite a humbling effect. This also eliminates the wrong idea of a post conversion Christian life. This in part comes from forgetting what real sin acts from us actually are, vices & virtues, for God looks on the heart. And second, without even one sin act we are STILL condemned by virtue of being IN Adam. And third, a complete disconnect with simultaneously just & sinner "“ POST conversion, the ONLY way to be simultaneously just & sinner. The false view of "œconversion" comes from the idea of a necessary dramatic conversion experience as the only "˜real´ conversion. To wit; if you didn´t have one, a life altering distinct experience, an "œI use to do x, y & z sins & the Lord then took that away from me" experience, then the heavy implication if not explicitly stated is, "œyou are not a converted Christian". Juxtaposition that thought with 100% saint & 100% sinner ALWAYS in this life POST conversion. And juxtaposition that with Paul who as he aged said "œI´m the least of the Apostles, wretched man that I am, and I am the chief of sinners." NOT, "œI use to do"¦& the Lord took that away from me." Which bears witness to the Gospel? Paul whom I can read & see & realize, "œYes there is certain hope because of Christ even for me, being the chief of sinners myself". Or, "œWhy does not the "˜Lord take my sins away from me like the testimony of this very outwardly pretty & clean person".
A religion boils down to this; what are you saved from your sins OR the wrath of God? If the former, then ANY of man´s fallen religions and philosophical systems can give the same pseudo testimony, even those who read Oprah Winfrey´s books. Only the later requires Jesus Christ AS Christ, not another Christ which is no Christ at all.
Ldh
BaptistCanuk
Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Hold on a second here. Where does the BIBLE say it is a sin to misinterpret Scripture? We are told to study to show ourselves approved. That says nothing about it being a "sin" for misinterpreting it. If I'm going to sin by misinterpreting it then maybe I shouldn't read it and just leave it up to my pastor to preach it. Then it will be on his head if he gets it wrong, not mine. Sound like a plan?
I'm sorry but I just get very irritated when someone (even those who wrote confessions) presume to say that it is a SIN to misinterpret Scripture. We are human, we will make mistakes in interpretation. To say such a thing sounds cultic in itself.
Anyways, on to the topic. Dispensationalism is just another system of interpreting eschatology. Since people on all sides use Scripture to defend their position it is my opinion that we cannot be sure. We are to look for the Lord's return, not be "sure" of when it is going to be.
Brian,
What exactly do false teachers do?
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.
Scott, false teachers teach falsely. And usually they are doing it on purpose. Notice the words "fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;...". That speaks of people knowing exactly what they are doing, which is a far cry in my opinion from someone who just makes a mistake. I would hate to have God tell me I am sinning because I believe in believer's baptism. I get believer's baptism from the Bible. How could I be sinning?
BaptistCanuk
Puritan Board Sophomore
But look at the words used. "Ignorant" and "unstable". Two words I wouldn't call someone who reverently reads the Bible and makes a mistake because "we see through a glass darkly". Also this would have to do with the Gospel I believe, not just anything. They twist the Gospel around to their own destruction. Not having the correct Gospel is what would lead to destruction.
- Status
