What If the False Teacher Sounds Like a Man of God?

[bdavidc]

I told you what was wrong with your own claims. Then I only meant to reason with you using your own terms, but you just wrote a page speaking against me, though I even complimented you. And what--your big gripe is that my message doesn't "agree with the apostolic gospel?" That is the very thing that I was calling to your attention about your own claims.

But no, my claims and message, are not my own, but are indeed in agreement with the apostolic gospel. The problem (and I repeat) is you have aligned with the errors of false teachers that were foretold to come and have come--strongly, causing so much delusion, that you feel you should be correcting me regarding the very gospel you say must agree, while your own gospel is out in the weeds...and yes, you are every bit as unaware as those who crucified Christ--because, what you have done to me--you have done to Him.

But it's all quite enough, you have had your warning, and rejected it many times. I will not bother you further.

Scott, you are misleading people when you claim that correcting your teaching amounts to rejecting Jesus Christ. Your statement, “what you have done to me, you have done to Him,” attempts to give your own claims Christ’s authority. You have not established that your message comes from Him. Invoking His name does not make your teaching true or your accusations His verdict.

You say my gospel is wrong. Then quote the actual teaching and demonstrate its error from Scripture in context. Calling me deluded and comparing me to those who crucified Christ proves nothing. Jesus said of His opponents, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). Their problem was rejecting God’s Word. You cannot honestly use their unbelief to condemn people for examining your claims by that Word.

Your claim to speak for God is precisely what requires examination. In 1 Kings 13, the old prophet claimed divine authority for his message, but Scripture says, “But he lied unto him” (verse 18). John commands, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). Paul likewise says, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge” (1 Corinthians 14:29). Neither passage gives you an exemption.

Paul even placed himself under the standard of the gospel he preached: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The message must agree with the apostolic gospel. A teacher’s insistence that his message comes from God does not establish that agreement.

As long as you keep promoting your teaching through the link attached to your posts, I will continue warning readers about your false teaching, which I can demonstrate from Scripture. You cannot publicly invite people to follow your teaching and then shield it from correction by accusing your critics of rejecting Christ. Ending this conversation does not answer the objections or remove your responsibility for what you teach.

Stop using Christ’s name to give your accusations authority they do not possess. Repent of equating correction of your teaching with rejection of Him, answer the passages placed before you, and correct what contradicts them. James warns that teachers “shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). That applies to both of us. Your claims must submit to God’s Word, and I will not let your accusations silence biblical examination.

Are you willing to have your book examined against Scripture, claim by claim? I am willing to purchase a copy and review what you actually wrote, quoting you accurately and examining the biblical passages in context. Where your teaching agrees with Scripture, I will acknowledge it. Where it contradicts Scripture, I will identify the error plainly. Will you answer those objections from the biblical text?

 

[bdavidc]

Paul’s theological trajectory shifts from an apocalyptic expectation of immediate historical rupture to an ecclesial framework centered on institutional endurance and covenantal continuity.

In his earliest letters (such as 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Galatians), Paul operated with an intense, imminent eschatology. He anticipated that the return of Christ would happen almost immediately within his lifetime.

As the years progressed and Christ did not immediately return, Paul’s theological paradigm shifted from preparing for an immediate exit to building up the structural of the church. His later letters (Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles) transition away from urgent end-times panic toward structural organization, pastoral governance, relational unity, and establishing deep roots for institutional survival.

Peter notes in (2 Peter 3:16) that some parts of Paul's letters are hard to understand, leading untaught and unstable people to twist them to their own destruction. (martin luther)

You still have not identified a failed biblical prophecy. You have offered a theory about Paul changing his theology, but where does Paul say Christ’s return had failed or that he needed to revise his teaching?

Your argument does not fit the passages. In 1 Thessalonians 5:12–14, Paul already teaches respect for church leaders, care for the weak, and correction of the disorderly. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3, he warns believers against being alarmed and explains that events must precede the day of the Lord. Calling this “urgent end-times panic” misrepresents what Paul actually taught.

The letters you call his later framework still explicitly teach Christ’s return. Titus 2:13 says, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Colossians 3:4 says, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Preparing believers to live faithfully and teaching them to await Christ’s return belong together. Neither proves that Paul abandoned a failed prediction.

And 2 Peter 3:16 does not say Paul changed his theology because his expectations failed. It says unstable people twist his writings, “as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Peter identifies the problem as twisting Scripture, not a mistake in Paul’s teaching. Show us the passage where Paul gives a deadline that failed. Your theory is not evidence that God broke His promise.

 

[bdavidc]

I'm not referring to newer interpretations as the 'new wine'. I point to the 'new wine' as meaning understanding of The Word of God by The Holy Spirit, full strength. For example, Lord Jesus made sure His Apostles understood what He was teaching, and it was the full strength Word of God as 'new wine'. The word 'new' is not what Lord Jesus was concentrating on when He gave that parable of the bottles. He was simply talking about fresh fermenting wine that needs room to expand, and thus new wine skins that won't crack. The 'new wine' was used in The Old Testament Books of Joel 1 and Isaiah 24 & 65 as a symbol also. It is comparable to the "strong meat" idea Paul used in Hebrews 5.

God chooses who is to hear and see with eyes to see, and ears to hear, and is not everyone during this present world time. That appears to be difficult for many brethren to accept but we will find out why that is when Lord Jesus returns. (I refer to Matthew 13).

Is there any one of us perfect in understanding all of God's written Word? Nope. But we should all strive to understand asking God's help, and following His Way to do it.

I agree that the Holy Spirit gives us understanding of God's Word. But we cannot use “the Spirit showed me” to give a biblical metaphor a meaning the text itself does not establish.

In Mark 2, Jesus does not say that the “new wine” means full-strength spiritual understanding. That meaning is being added to the passage.

The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, and He will not contradict or override what He inspired. So every claimed spiritual insight still has to be tested by the actual words and context of Scripture.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

The Spirit gives understanding, but we cannot use “the Spirit showed me” to give a biblical metaphor a meaning the text itself does not establish.

 

[ScottA]

Scott, you are misleading people when you claim that correcting your teaching amounts to rejecting Jesus Christ. Your statement, “what you have done to me, you have done to Him,” attempts to give your own claims Christ’s authority. You have not established that your message comes from Him. Invoking His name does not make your teaching true or your accusations His verdict.

You say my gospel is wrong. Then quote the actual teaching and demonstrate its error from Scripture in context. Calling me deluded and comparing me to those who crucified Christ proves nothing. Jesus said of His opponents, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). Their problem was rejecting God’s Word. You cannot honestly use their unbelief to condemn people for examining your claims by that Word.

Your claim to speak for God is precisely what requires examination. In 1 Kings 13, the old prophet claimed divine authority for his message, but Scripture says, “But he lied unto him” (verse 18). John commands, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). Paul likewise says, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge” (1 Corinthians 14:29). Neither passage gives you an exemption.

Paul even placed himself under the standard of the gospel he preached: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The message must agree with the apostolic gospel. A teacher’s insistence that his message comes from God does not establish that agreement.

As long as you keep promoting your teaching through the link attached to your posts, I will continue warning readers about your false teaching, which I can demonstrate from Scripture. You cannot publicly invite people to follow your teaching and then shield it from correction by accusing your critics of rejecting Christ. Ending this conversation does not answer the objections or remove your responsibility for what you teach.

Stop using Christ’s name to give your accusations authority they do not possess. Repent of equating correction of your teaching with rejection of Him, answer the passages placed before you, and correct what contradicts them. James warns that teachers “shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). That applies to both of us. Your claims must submit to God’s Word, and I will not let your accusations silence biblical examination.

Are you willing to have your book examined against Scripture, claim by claim? I am willing to purchase a copy and review what you actually wrote, quoting you accurately and examining the biblical passages in context. Where your teaching agrees with Scripture, I will acknowledge it. Where it contradicts Scripture, I will identify the error plainly. Will you answer those objections from the biblical text?

"We speak what we know." Unfortunately you believe only the part you know. Part. Which is no better than a lie, based on your own understanding of what is written.

The scriptures are correct--but your understanding of them is wrong.

As for me, I claim nothing, but speak only what is given to me from God. That--if you haven't noticed--is how He works.

Now I leave you to your own issues with God.

 

[quietthinker]

Hi, quietthinker,

A deep understanding of Scripture is the most important thing, but consider this simple test: If you pinch yourself and can still feel physical pain, you are not seeing the return of the “genuine“ Christ. According to 1 Corinthians 15:52, the real return of Jesus happens in an instant, transforming us into incorruptible, spiritual bodies.

1 Corinthians 15:52 (KJV) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

*The Antichrist comes at the sixth trumpet, and Jesus follows at the seventh.

What does 'a deep understanding of scripture' mean to you?

 

[Sel@h]

What does 'a deep understanding of scripture' mean to you?

To me, the only way I can understand scripture is by studying it—by reading it daily, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER VERSE BY VERSE.

 

[Behold]

But what if the person deceiving you carried a Bible, quoted Scripture, called himself a preacher

Paul teaches in 2nd Corin that the Devil's ministers, will profess to be a Christian and they will say exactly what a weak believer or a religious faker or a carnal baby Christian will want to hear.
They will talk about "righteousness" but they will falsely teach that you are to do it, to have it, according to works, Law, and commandment keeping.
And they will always teach that you can lose your salvation.
Always.
Every Heretic will teach that lie.
Every single one of them.

So, reader, if you are theologically confused, or you are a new believer, and you are wondering......>>"who can i trust on these forums".

Well, all you have to do is find out who you CANT trust, and that is everyone who will try to make you believe that you can lose your salvation.
Listen, You cannot trust this person with a Bible......as they do not understand even the most basic fundementals of "Justification by Faith".. which is the Heart of Salvation Theology. (Soterology).
As that deceived person, does not understand The Cross of Christ, and that is a Fact.
So, simply ask anyone you are wondering about..........>"do you believe and teach that you can lose your salvation". ????????
And if they say ""yes"", they will then come running with their little packet of twisted bible verses to try to bend the bible into their false demonic teaching.

A.) Get away from these people.
Do not listen to them.
Shut them out.

Whereas, a real Preacher-Teacher, will take you directly to The Cross of Christ and say.....>>"SEE HIM........SEE BLOODY JESUS Hanging from those Spikes?..... Do you SEE THAT Blood Atonement ?????......= THERE is where God's Grace is being given to you as "the GIFT of Righteousness".

And "Faith comes by hearing that message"........Reader............because right There is your Salvation found, and that is not somethning you can do for youself.

 

[quietthinker]

To me, the only way I can understand scripture is by studying it—by reading it daily, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER VERSE BY VERSE.

The religious folk in Jesus day did the same. In fact, all 'religious' folk engage in this throughout history.....more or less.
Consider many participants on this forum; the endless debates about minutia as if all these things were hills to die on.

There is another factor to consider and that is, what if one were blind or deaf or mute or even mentally handicapped without the ability to 'read it daily, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER VERSE BY VERSE' ?

 

[Sel@h]

The religious folk in Jesus day did the same. In fact, all 'religious' folk engage in this throughout history.....more or less.
Consider many participants on this forum; the endless debates about minutia as if all these things were hills to die on.

There is another factor to consider and that is, what if one were blind or deaf or mute or even mentally handicapped without the ability to 'read it daily, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER VERSE BY VERSE' ?

Lol! Hold on there…. You asked me, “What does 'a deep understanding of scripture' mean to you?”
Well, for me, studying the scriptures chapter by chapter and verse by verse is not an exercise in legalism or a search for minutia, but a deliberate act of devotion. I approach my studies this way because I believe that the depth of the message is found in the details and that the true meaning of a passage is unlocked through its context. While I recognize that faith is experienced in many ways, and that God meets every person regardless of their ability or inability to read or study, this disciplined, sequential approach is how I personally prefer to get understanding.

 

[sondring7]

According to Heb 3:1 who is Apostle to sondring7 ?........LOL

Where does Scripture teach Paul wrote Hebrews ?

 

[bdavidc]

"We speak what we know." Unfortunately you believe only the part you know. Part. Which is no better than a lie, based on your own understanding of what is written.

The scriptures are correct--but your understanding of them is wrong.

As for me, I claim nothing, but speak only what is given to me from God. That--if you haven't noticed--is how He works.

Now I leave you to your own issues with God.

You still have not answered the issue. You simply declare my understanding wrong, call it “no better than a lie,” then claim that what you speak is “given to me from God.”

That is exactly the kind of claim Scripture tells us to test, not blindly accept.

God said, “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied” (Jeremiah 23:21). So saying “God gave it to me” proves absolutely nothing. False prophets said the same thing.

If what you are teaching really came from God, then it will stand when examined by the Word of God. Instead of showing from Scripture where I am wrong, you dismiss the correction and claim divine authority for yourself. That is not a defense of your teaching. It is evasion.

And telling me that I have “issues with God” because I test your teaching is backwards. God Himself commands, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1), and, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

I am not going to accept your teaching because you tell me God gave it to you. He did not. Your words are not Scripture, and you are not above correction, and you are a false teacher trying to sell your book.

You were given the opportunity to defend your teaching from the Bible, and instead you hid behind a claim of personal revelation and walked away. That should tell everyone reading this something.

If your teaching cannot survive being examined against Scripture, then it did not come from God.

“Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!” (Ezekiel 13:3).

Again: Are you willing to have your book examined against Scripture, claim by claim? I am willing to purchase a copy and review what you actually wrote, quoting you accurately and examining the biblical passages in context. Where your teaching agrees with Scripture, I will acknowledge it. Where it contradicts Scripture, I will identify the error plainly. Will you answer those objections from the biblical text?

 

[Fathom]

And 2 Peter 3:16 does not say Paul changed his theology because his expectations failed. It says unstable people twist his writings, “as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Peter identifies the problem as twisting Scripture, not a mistake in Paul’s teaching. Show us the passage where Paul gives a deadline that failed. Your theory is not evidence that God broke His promise.

You didn't mention the part where Peter, (inspired by the Holy Spirit) admitted that some of Paul's writings can be hard to understand. (2 Peter 3:16)

Can you explain what he meant by that?

 

[sondring7]

You didn't mention the part where Peter, (inspired by the Holy Spirit) admitted that some of Paul's writings can be hard to understand. (2 Peter 3:16)

Can you explain what he meant by that?

Hard to understand
What do you find hard to understand from Paul ?
ps.
Why would GOD allow Paul to be in the Bible if Pauls teachings leads believers today to destruction ?

 

[ScottA]

You still have not answered the issue. You simply declare my understanding wrong, call it “no better than a lie,” then claim that what you speak is “given to me from God.”

That is exactly the kind of claim Scripture tells us to test, not blindly accept.

God said, “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied” (Jeremiah 23:21). So saying “God gave it to me” proves absolutely nothing. False prophets said the same thing.

If what you are teaching really came from God, then it will stand when examined by the Word of God. Instead of showing from Scripture where I am wrong, you dismiss the correction and claim divine authority for yourself. That is not a defense of your teaching. It is evasion.

And telling me that I have “issues with God” because I test your teaching is backwards. God Himself commands, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1), and, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

I am not going to accept your teaching because you tell me God gave it to you. He did not. Your words are not Scripture, and you are not above correction, and you are a false teacher trying to sell your book.

You were given the opportunity to defend your teaching from the Bible, and instead you hid behind a claim of personal revelation and walked away. That should tell everyone reading this something.

If your teaching cannot survive being examined against Scripture, then it did not come from God.

“Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!” (Ezekiel 13:3).

Again: Are you willing to have your book examined against Scripture, claim by claim? I am willing to purchase a copy and review what you actually wrote, quoting you accurately and examining the biblical passages in context. Where your teaching agrees with Scripture, I will acknowledge it. Where it contradicts Scripture, I will identify the error plainly. Will you answer those objections from the biblical text?

You are not hearing me, or simply rejecting what I have said, although I have explained.

But look, this is not a competition. You pridefully sticking to your own understanding and interpretation "proves nothing" either, false interpreters "say the same thing." Those are your words and that doesn't give you "divine authority" either.

That is what I have been explaining--that you are simply repeating the textbook failures of the past, thinking you are doing a biblical "test." But you are only comparing what you believe is the correct interpretation. That doesn't cut it. But I get it, you are in a position of wanting to "prove" what you believe the scriptures say, compared to what you are hearing from me. But I have no need to prove anything--that is not how this works--not how it has been all throughout history. On the contrary, what has happened repeatedly, is God gives something to someone to declare and it is either received or rejected. That is how this is all supposed to work--by design--that is the dividing mechanism and process set before all people.

Therefore, yes, I compared you to those who thought they knew the scriptures...and yet crucified Christ. That's how this works. So, now you want to raise me up to be examined--go for it--I'm in good company. Biblical company of the best kind. But you--you would do better to learn from history, to listen instead of think you have it all figured out--and get the latest from God...or don't, just move on, if you want to walk away from what you think is crazy--you won't be the first to do that either. If I am crazy, what I have said will fizzle out and amount to nothing. In which case you can say, ah ha! Alternatively, you have much to loose if you are wrong, as so many have been before you. Suit yourself, that's the point. Everyone must choose. That is the biblical "test."

 

[Fathom]

Hard to understand
What do you find hard to understand from Paul ?
ps.
Why would GOD allow Paul to be in the Bible if Pauls teachings leads believers today to destruction ?

Since Peter did not identify the parts of Paul's writing that he found difficult to understand, it can be inferred that he is indirectly alerting us to the potential pitfalls in Paul's writings. A stumbling block.

Could you explain what Peter meant by saying that Paul's writing can be difficult to understand?

 

[sondring7]

Since Peter did not identify the parts of Paul's writing that he found difficult to understand, it can be inferred that he is indirectly alerting us to the potential pitfalls in Paul's writings. A stumbling block.

Could you explain what Peter meant by saying that Paul's writing can be difficult to understand?

Yes, which parts of Paul's writings was Peter referring to so that we can discuss your question ?