Author Topic: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers  (Read 2529 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2013, 11:12:40 AM »
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


While the LORD does not change, he, also says to us, "Look! I'm making all things new" (Revelation 21:5b). We shouldn't expect God to just do the same thing over and over again in every century; but look for the new things God is doing.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Jay Michael

  • Guest
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2013, 11:16:49 AM »
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
While the LORD does not change, he, also says to us, "Look! I'm making all things new" (Revelation 21:5b). We shouldn't expect God to just do the same thing over and over again in every century; but look for the new things God is doing.
New may but does not necessarily indicate change.

cnehring

  • Guest
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2013, 11:34:31 AM »
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


While the LORD does not change, he, also says to us, "Look! I'm making all things new" (Revelation 21:5b). We shouldn't expect God to just do the same thing over and over again in every century; but look for the new things God is doing.

Ummmmmm....Revelation 21 is speaking of the end of all time and the giving of the new heaven, earth and Jerusalem. That is when all things will be made new. Finish out the section-verse 8 describes those who are not given a "portion" that those who conquer will-and this small list looks much like the previous lists in Scripture of what God detests and demands our repentance over and abstaining from.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 11:44:09 AM by cnehring »

cnehring

  • Guest
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2013, 11:40:01 AM »
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.

When you read some of those who come before us in the faith (which I know is taboo in this age of relevancy where your opinion stands over all others), when the Bible speaks of God "changing His mind," it really isn't so much that God changed His mind but that He had led those whom He was speaking to, to call upon Him in faith and proclaim the promises God had previously made.

So, after the golden calf episode, what God was after was that Moses call upon the promises previously made. With Jonah, it was God's desire that they repent and be saved anyway, so when they did after Jonah preached, it fulfilled God's desire anyway.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2013, 11:42:07 AM »
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.


Scripture disagree with you about God changing his mind.



"The LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and he was heartbroken." (Genesis 6:6)


"At any time I may announce that I will dig up, pull down, and destroy a nation or kingdom; but if that nation I warned turns from its evil, then I'll relent and not carry out the harm I intended for it. At the same time, I may announce that I will build and plant a nation or kingdom; but if that nation displeases and disobeys me, then I'll relent and not carry out the good i intended for it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10)


"Who knows? God may see this and turn from his wrath, so that we might not perish. God saw what they were doing -- that they had ceased their evil behavior. So God stopped planning to destroy them, and he didn't do it." (Jonah 3:9-10)


We have stories and promises from the prophets that God can "repent" - change his mind - about the evil (or the good) that he has said he would do.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2013, 11:43:04 AM »
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


While the LORD does not change, he, also says to us, "Look! I'm making all things new" (Revelation 21:5b). We shouldn't expect God to just do the same thing over and over again in every century; but look for the new things God is doing.

Ummmmmm....Revelation 21 is speaking of the end of all time and the giving of the new heaven, earth and Jerusalem. That is when all things will be made new.


God's statement is in the present tense - not future tense.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2013, 11:45:04 AM »
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
While the LORD does not change, he, also says to us, "Look! I'm making all things new" (Revelation 21:5b). We shouldn't expect God to just do the same thing over and over again in every century; but look for the new things God is doing.
New may but does not necessarily indicate change.


The old passes away and the new comes - seems to imply a drastic change. Such language is used in 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Revelation 21:1.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steverem

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2013, 11:57:08 AM »

Ummmmmm....Revelation 21 is speaking of the end of all time and the giving of the new heaven, earth and Jerusalem. That is when all things will be made new.


God's statement is in the present tense - not future tense.

Present tense, yes, but in the telling of a vision of the new Heaven and Earth, which is a vision of the future.  John is speaking presently with God in the vision, but the vision itself is eschatological.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2013, 12:01:09 PM »

Ummmmmm....Revelation 21 is speaking of the end of all time and the giving of the new heaven, earth and Jerusalem. That is when all things will be made new.


God's statement is in the present tense - not future tense.

Present tense, yes, but in the telling of a vision of the new Heaven and Earth, which is a vision of the future.  John is speaking presently with God in the vision, but the vision itself is eschatological.


And it was written to give comfort and hope to persecuted Christians who heard these words in the present time. "God is making all things new" is a word of hope for people whose lives right now are in shambles - through no fault of their own, but because the world (in John's case, Domitian and the Roman Empire,) has turned against them.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2013, 01:19:10 PM »
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.


Scripture disagree with you about God changing his mind.



"The LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and he was heartbroken." (Genesis 6:6)


"At any time I may announce that I will dig up, pull down, and destroy a nation or kingdom; but if that nation I warned turns from its evil, then I'll relent and not carry out the harm I intended for it. At the same time, I may announce that I will build and plant a nation or kingdom; but if that nation displeases and disobeys me, then I'll relent and not carry out the good i intended for it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10)


"Who knows? God may see this and turn from his wrath, so that we might not perish. God saw what they were doing -- that they had ceased their evil behavior. So God stopped planning to destroy them, and he didn't do it." (Jonah 3:9-10)


We have stories and promises from the prophets that God can "repent" - change his mind - about the evil (or the good) that he has said he would do.

It would be nice to think this through on a slightly deeper theological level.  In this light you are making God appear as no different than a vacillating human who changes his mind almost at a whim.  However, given that God is a God both of love and mercy and judgement, might we not look at these verses in that light? It is tempting to pit one attribute against another, as when people feel that a God of love could not possibly impose any kind of judgement, especially when it results in eternal separation.  The fact that God loves his creation and desires not to impose judgement does not mean that He changes his mind if he eventually allows that judgement to be realized which he had warned them about originally.  We also need to consider carefully the language used to translate the original Hebrew.  Your translation has God "regretting" that he made man as if he made a mistake.  The ESV uses the word "sorry," again a human emotion, but which works closer with the rest of the verse that describes God's sorrow over what man had become because of sin.  In the niphal form of this verb it can mean "to be moved to pity, have compassion."  So taking the verse as a whole and in context, it would appear that ascribing to God the vicissitude of emotions and intent common to sinful humans is not appropriate.  God's will is consistent and when he does something different than what He originally willed, it is a reflection of the change of sinful man, not God. A good example would be the introduction of death into the world.  Given a more balanced view of God and His will, I believe that the other quoted verses could also be adequately explained as well.
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5006
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2013, 01:22:24 PM »

Ummmmmm....Revelation 21 is speaking of the end of all time and the giving of the new heaven, earth and Jerusalem. That is when all things will be made new.


God's statement is in the present tense - not future tense.

Present tense, yes, but in the telling of a vision of the new Heaven and Earth, which is a vision of the future.  John is speaking presently with God in the vision, but the vision itself is eschatological.


And it was written to give comfort and hope to persecuted Christians who heard these words in the present time. "God is making all things new" is a word of hope for people whose lives right now are in shambles - through no fault of their own, but because the world (in John's case, Domitian and the Roman Empire,) has turned against them.

It is not just a word of hope, but a present reality which will be realized in all its fulness at the end.  In Baptism we are already made new creations.  In the living Christ we have already passed from death to life.  So when "all things are made new" this is not something radically different than before, but the completion of what was first given in the waters of life at the font.
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Dave Likeness

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5287
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2013, 01:32:01 PM »
Pastor Engebretson  has reminded us that it is
popular for some people to use an anthropomorphism
when talking about God.   This happens when we
refer to God by giving him the same qualities and
emotions as man.

Bottom Line:  The divine attributes of God trump
any attempt to use an anthropomorphism.

Coach-Rev

  • Guest
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2013, 02:52:24 PM »
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.


Scripture disagree with you about God changing his mind.



"The LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and he was heartbroken." (Genesis 6:6)


"At any time I may announce that I will dig up, pull down, and destroy a nation or kingdom; but if that nation I warned turns from its evil, then I'll relent and not carry out the harm I intended for it. At the same time, I may announce that I will build and plant a nation or kingdom; but if that nation displeases and disobeys me, then I'll relent and not carry out the good i intended for it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10)


"Who knows? God may see this and turn from his wrath, so that we might not perish. God saw what they were doing -- that they had ceased their evil behavior. So God stopped planning to destroy them, and he didn't do it." (Jonah 3:9-10)


We have stories and promises from the prophets that God can "repent" - change his mind - about the evil (or the good) that he has said he would do.

I'll simply refer you to the post directly above your response, and some that follow.


Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2013, 02:58:44 PM »
All language about God is to some extent metaphorical, a fact recognized by most commentators except for Biblical literalists like apparently Prs. Austin and Stoffregen who seem to delight in pointing out how a literal understanding often leads to difficulties which seem in their minds to prove the fallibility of Holy Writ.
 
God is both like us in some ways and very unlike us in some ways.  We are created in His image (sorry literalists that does not mean that God looks like us so lets not go there, shall we?).  We are persons with self awareness and intelligence.  So is God (but with much greater intelligence).  We are creature who have physical existence, locality (we exist in one place at a time) and experience time in a linear fashion.  God is spirit and so does not by His nature have physical existence (although He can take on such existence at will), is alocal (exists everywhere at the same time) and is timeless (does not experience time as we do but holds all time in His eternal present).  In those things He is very different, how different is shown by how difficult it is to even speak coherently about how His existence is different than ours.
 
This means that often when God communicates with us, or people talk about God, it is expressed in language that couched in terms that would be applicable to us.  If God is timeless, He literally cannot change since change happens in linear time.  God would not experience sequence, first being one way, or deciding one way now and later changing His mind.  Being timeless, God has no sequence.  But it is much easier to put these things into human terms than to every time have to explain the philosophical complications.  Unless one insists on a strictly literal understanding of the Bible which error hunters like to do, it works pretty well.  It's like talking about sunrise and sunset.  For ordinary use that works well, in some specialized situations more precision is needed and it causes problems with literalists that do not or refuse to recognize metaphors.
 
There is also the matter of Cambridge Changes.  A Cambridge Change is a change that happens when relating one thing to another.  From where I live in Danville Illinois, Cambridge England is at a particular distance from me on a particular heading.  If I were to visit family in St. Peter Minnesota,  Cambridge's distance and heading to me would change.  So the fact about Cambridge that it is X distance in X direction from me, would be changed to the fact about Cambridge that it is now Y distance in Y direction from me.  But has Cambridge itself really changed?  One if I am in fact the unchanging center of the universe (something that everybody would dispute).  It is our relationship that has changed because I have changed.
 
We change and so our relationship to God can change, which can change God's reaction to us.  But these can be seen as Cambridge Changes, changes in us and our relationship rather than a change in God.  Unless of course one is a literalist and does not recognize that the Bible uses metaphorical anthropomorphisms. (Should we find a different, less sexist term for this? {Can we assume that "anthropo-" also refers to women or is that sexist?}).
 
Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: How The Apostle Paul Defines False Teachers
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2013, 05:20:58 PM »
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.


Scripture disagree with you about God changing his mind.



"The LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and he was heartbroken." (Genesis 6:6)


"At any time I may announce that I will dig up, pull down, and destroy a nation or kingdom; but if that nation I warned turns from its evil, then I'll relent and not carry out the harm I intended for it. At the same time, I may announce that I will build and plant a nation or kingdom; but if that nation displeases and disobeys me, then I'll relent and not carry out the good i intended for it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10)


"Who knows? God may see this and turn from his wrath, so that we might not perish. God saw what they were doing -- that they had ceased their evil behavior. So God stopped planning to destroy them, and he didn't do it." (Jonah 3:9-10)


We have stories and promises from the prophets that God can "repent" - change his mind - about the evil (or the good) that he has said he would do.

It would be nice to think this through on a slightly deeper theological level.  In this light you are making God appear as no different than a vacillating human who changes his mind almost at a whim.  However, given that God is a God both of love and mercy and judgement, might we not look at these verses in that light? It is tempting to pit one attribute against another, as when people feel that a God of love could not possibly impose any kind of judgement, especially when it results in eternal separation.  The fact that God loves his creation and desires not to impose judgement does not mean that He changes his mind if he eventually allows that judgement to be realized which he had warned them about originally.  We also need to consider carefully the language used to translate the original Hebrew.  Your translation has God "regretting" that he made man as if he made a mistake.  The ESV uses the word "sorry," again a human emotion, but which works closer with the rest of the verse that describes God's sorrow over what man had become because of sin.  In the niphal form of this verb it can mean "to be moved to pity, have compassion."  So taking the verse as a whole and in context, it would appear that ascribing to God the vicissitude of emotions and intent common to sinful humans is not appropriate.  God's will is consistent and when he does something different than what He originally willed, it is a reflection of the change of sinful man, not God. A good example would be the introduction of death into the world.  Given a more balanced view of God and His will, I believe that the other quoted verses could also be adequately explained as well.


God is frequently pictured as a human being - walking in a garden, having arms, and changing his mind (always for good reasons). Along with that, in different circumstances, God can seemingly say opposite things - just as good parents may say opposite things to a child at different times or circumstances in their lives. God says that will punish to the third and forth generations in Exodus 20; but in Ezekiel 18, each generations suffers for their own sins. We are to beat weapons of war into farm implements in Micah 4:3 & Isaiah 2:4; but Joel 3:10 says just the opposite: farm implements are to be turned into weapons of war.


Our only frame of reference in talking about God is ourselves. Thus, when God wanted to most fully reveal himself to us, he had to do it as a human being.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]