How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers

[Dave Likeness]

In his 1st Letter to Timothy , the Apostle Paul defines
a false teacher. (1Timothy 1:3-11, 4:1-8,  6:3-5, 20-21)

1) They teach false doctrines which are different from the
     teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

2) They devote themselves to myths which promote
     controversies rather than God's work.

3) They misuse and mishandle the Mosaic moral law

4) They teach an ascetic lifestyle to abstain from certain
     foods  and forbid marriage

5) They are conceited and have an unhealthy interest
     in quarrels about words.

6) They think godliness is a means to financial gain.

This definition still can be helpful in the 21st century as
it was in the 1st century.

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

Luke chimed in as well: 

"...and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them."
(Acts 20:30)

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

But, of course, that is just Luke's and Paul's interpretation... 

 

[Brian Stoffregen]

But, of course, that is just Luke's and Paul's interpretation... 

 

And probably not even Paul's interpretation.


The false teachers Paul criticizes in Galatians (which even included Peter!) were those who required believers to obey the Jewish laws, such as refusing to eat with Gentiles; those who would usurp our freedom and equality with each other in Christ.

[John Mundinger]

This definition still can be helpful in the 21st century as it was in the 1st century.

To help me understand how these 1st century definitions apply to the 21st century, can you provide a couple of examples of how they might apply to issues that are frequently discussed as "false doctrine" in this forum - 1) ordination of women; 2) evolution; and, 3) closed communion.

[Jay Michael]

This definition still can be helpful in the 21st century as it was in the 1st century.

To help me understand how these 1st century definitions apply to the 21st century, can you provide a couple of examples of how they might apply to issues that are frequently discussed as "false doctrine" in this forum - 1) ordination of women; 2) evolution; and, 3) closed communion.

Interesting that it is finally acknowledged that closed communion was a fact of life and practice in the first century ... and by one who constantly quibbles about whether the Lutheran confessions adequately addresses the doctrine of closed communion.

It is rather puzzling that a truth of the first century can become a falsehood simply with the passage of time. Scripture clearly states "For I am the Lord, I change not". Mal 3:6

[John Mundinger]

Interesting that it is finally acknowledged that closed communion was a fact of life and practice in the first century ... and by one who constantly quibbles about whether the Lutheran confessions adequately addresses the doctrine of closed communion.

Jay - please explain yourself.

If by closed, you mean that 1st Century Christians served the Sacrament only to believers, you and I are in complete agreement.  However, if you mean that 1st Century Christians served some believers and intentionally excluded others, please share the Scripture passages that both demonstrate and justify that practice.

[Jay Michael]

Interesting that it is finally acknowledged that closed communion was a fact of life and practice in the first century ... and by one who constantly quibbles about whether the Lutheran confessions adequately addresses the doctrine of closed communion.

Jay - please explain yourself.

If by closed, you mean that 1st Century Christians served the Sacrament only to believers, you and I are in complete agreement.  However, if you mean that 1st Century Christians served some believers and intentionally excluded others, please share the Scripture passages that both demonstrate and justify that practice.

I was simply commenting on your words which you did not see fit to include with the quoted words above despite the fact that I included them in the quote when I commented on them.

[Charles_Austin]

Jay. writes:
 Scripture clearly states "For I am the Lord, I change not". Mal 3:6

I comment:
Proof-texting doesn't get us anywhere. God does indeed change. He decided to destroy the world, then relented; he sent his people into captivity; and then freed them. Too often when people talk about God in that Yoda-esque "changing not" language; what they mean is they don't like the thought of changing their views about God.

[Jay Michael]

Jay. writes:
 Scripture clearly states "For I am the Lord, I change not". Mal 3:6

I comment:
Proof-texting doesn't get us anywhere. God does indeed change. He decided to destroy the world, then relented; he sent his people into captivity; and then freed them. Too often when people talk about God in that Yoda-esque "changing not" language; what they mean is they don't like the thought of changing their views about God.

Apparently Almighty God was not referring to the events you speak of since these words were inspired far later in history than the events of which you speak. 

Your effort discrediting God's word fails miserably.  If God is indeed a moving target as you seem to imply above, how do you know that His salvation in Christ is really for you since according to your comment above "God does indeed change."

[John Mundinger]

I was simply commenting on your words which you did not see fit to include with the quoted words above despite the fact that I included them in the quote when I commented on them.

Then, perhaps, you should re-read my quote.  I did not say that "closed communion" was a 1st Century practice.  I asked Pastor Likeness how he would apply the 1st Century standards that he listed to begin this conversation to 21st Century matters in dispute, one of which is closed communion.

[Coach-Rev]

God does indeed change. He decided to destroy the world, then relented; he sent his people into captivity; and then freed them. Too often when people talk about God in that Yoda-esque "changing not" language; what they mean is they don't like the thought of changing their views about God.

Wow.  Just Wow.  You are so wrong and so off base on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps its enough to say that too often when people talk about a God who changes as you've described, its because they don't like the thought of accepting a God who does not change and who truly has all things in control and accomplishes all things according to a plan they neither understand or accept.

[Dave Likeness]

Mr. John Mundinger asked how Christians can
refute the false teaching of evolution in the
21st century with the 1st century teaching of Christ
and the Apostles.

Christ said, "From the beginning of creation God made
them male and female."   Mark 10:6

The Apostle Peter wrote, "The earth was formed out of
water and through the water by the word of God."  2 Peter 3:5

The Apostle Paul preached, "God made from one man every
nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth."  Acts 17:26

What Christ, Peter, and Paul said in the 1st century still applies
to the discussion of evolution in the 21st century.

[cnehring]

But, of course, that is just Luke's and Paul's interpretation... 

 

And probably not even Paul's interpretation.


The false teachers Paul criticizes in Galatians (which even included Peter!) were those who required believers to obey the Jewish laws, such as refusing to eat with Gentiles; those who would usurp our freedom and equality with each other in Christ.

Nice try. You present a Paul who opposed the Judaizer's at Galatia with an Epicurian (sp?) theology-as though freedom and equality is the basis upon all theology, life and practice. In Galatia, the Judaizers were seeking a religion in which salvation needed to be "fulfilled" by acts of the law and not by faith alone.

Read the last chapter of Galatians: Paul's "freedom" and "equality" of salvation by faith in Christ alone was to be tempered by a life that reflects such a freedom from the forces and desires of sin, flesh and the devil.

[Jay Michael]

I was simply commenting on your words which you did not see fit to include with the quoted words above despite the fact that I included them in the quote when I commented on them.

Then, perhaps, you should re-read my quote.  I did not say that "closed communion" was a 1st Century practice.  I asked Pastor Likeness how he would apply the 1st Century standards that he listed to begin this conversation to 21st Century matters in dispute, one of which is closed communion.

Your failure to re-quote yourself ... instead choosing to attempt to explain yourself ... well speaks for itself.