Expectations Exposed
I often get the impression that some of my fellow believers think I am too strict about doctrinal orthodoxy, that my line dividing correct understanding vs incorrect understanding is too rigidly drawn. My stance usually comes to the surface in conversations about particular teachers or churches and my disdain for some teachings. I have heard people say concerning popular teachers today who draw sizable crowds, that even though some of their doctrine may be off, they do have some good things to say and we can pick out the parts that we deem correct. My response is that these teachers should be avoided. False doctrine should be exposed.
So yes, I admit that my line is thick, the line that represents an understanding of the triune God, His movement through time, His works, His salvation, His love. It is not a line that is arbitrary or that has been filled in with popular or populist ideas about Christianity or with sentiments that should have a soothing appeal to all my senses. But the line has been shaped and structured through a careful and deliberate consideration of the whole counsel of scriptures, the desire to understand scripture in their historical, grammatical and cultural context, and the examination of doctrinal development since the resurrection of Christ. Obviously, I’m still learning and would never consider myself to have arrived. And there’s so much more to learn, which is why I am in seminary. The learning will never stop. But the learning has been prompted to understand God on His terms, salvation as He has chosen to provide it, and His expectations for my life here on earth.
Life is what we doing here. I think that what my softer brothers and sisters don’t quite get yet, is the reason behind my lines, the reason my reaction is to spur those who would distort in any way, the God-breathed written communication about Himself. Because what we believe about God, how He operates in His trinity, His revelation, our salvation will make all the difference in the world regarding our expectations about Him and how He will move on our behalf. This will play out how we live this life here. If we are instructed that God is at our beck and call and will respond according our words, then we will expect Him to do that. If we taught that God moves in ways similar to methods He used prior to the first Advent, then we will expect that. If we believe that health, wealth and prosperity are divine appointed rights of the believer, we will expect that in our lives. If we believe that God requires us to keep elements of the Mosaic law juxtaposed to grace to preserve and enhance our sanctification, then we will expect God to be pleased with the impositions of legalism. The list goes on but these are a few.
Recently, a tragic situation has developed close to me. My sister-in-law had a brain aneurysm last Sunday. Mary and her husband Steve (my late husband’s oldest brother) were also my pastors for 5 years (2001-2006)and so as this week has unfolded, I have been in contact with those that I had once fellowshipped with. A dear sister with whom I served on the worship team during my time there, and who I believe is influenced by some popular, but distorted teachings, expressed to me her anger with God about the situation. She said “I thought she was supposed to get right up”. And while this sister is wanting to trust that God will have His way, she is being confronted with expectations that have been formed by doctrinal distortion. (I am believing with them for a full recovery btw)
This is but a small example of why we have to expose any teaching that would contradict a sound understanding of how God has revealed Himself in scripture. Paul instructed Timothy to do the same
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which may give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. (1 Timothy 3-4)
And after indicating to Timothy in chapter 4, that the in the latter times will be a falling away from the faith produced by paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons (vs. 1), he says in vs 6
In pointing out these things to the brethern, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.
I don’t think this means that we go ballistic or become heresy hunters. But I also consider that our love for the body should encourage us to expose distortions and not cozy up to teachers just because they might have something nice to say. There is a spiritual war in play that wants to overthrow as many unsuspecting and poorly taught saints as possible. Because maybe if expectations can be built on false hope, then then chaos, confusion and disallusionment can result rendering the saint ineffective for the kingdom and destroying their love for God. But my love for the body for whom Christ died will not allow me to soft-pedal distortions but to expose them and the ill-conceived expectations they produce.
Powered by FireStats
Define: False Doctrine
Comment by RB — November 12, 2008 @ 7:08 am
RB, that is a very good question, I think. Here is my definition of sound doctrine (as Paul exhorts Titus to in Tit 1:9) - teaching that orients us towards and in a saving faith of Jesus Christ, Himself being the head of the church, the sole conduit for salvation and reconciliation with God, the ultimate judge of sin and rebellion and the chief cornerstone of the Christian faith. It is teaching that will accurately reflect the work and person of Christ in context of His deity, His incarnation, His sacrificial atonement. Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 presents a very solid case for the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. Teaching that deviates from these essential components, are distorted or false.
You will note, that in my example I used distorted and not false doctrine. I think there is a difference as distorted will misrepresent but not deny the essential components of our faith, as achored in Christ.
There are many peripheal positions that can be considered false, which ultimately have the foundation of misrepresenting Christ. For example, doctrine that believes there are new revelations is false as refuted by Hebrews 1:1-3. Doctrine that denies the triunity of God, gets Jesus wrong and therefore is false.
Comment by lisa robinson — November 12, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
as you will duely note, the actions taken against me for presenting the Truth as the Scriptures speak concering Christ and the falsehood of the doctrine of the trinity:
Not only is the accusation against me as presented there, false and misleading, it is ultimately apparent that those who claim truth from a false doctrine also claim false witness against the TRUTH of the Scriptures and the messanger….
As to your Heb 1.1-3, there is no trinity there, only what MAN teaches….
Yet Acts 10:38 is correct[please read-cross referrence it and see for yourself], for the Spirit that led Peter to make this claim about God and Christ, also is the same Spirit that BLESSED the words and Preaching of Peter in the same passage.
How can the Spirit of God lead Peter to state this and the same Spirit of God BLESS this by others coming to Christ, be the same Spirit that teaaches that Jesus is God? - seems to contradict what MAN teaches….doesn’t it.
Comment by RB — November 17, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Since the first Advent of Christ, there have been many wise men who have attempted to redefine Christ and His very nature, as being equal with God and Him existing with God since the beginning. As these challenges arose, the church responded in defense of who Christ is according to the revelation of God, which bound in Scriptures. So it is correct to say that the doctrine of the trinity is man devised but it is done so to adequately define the Biblical revelation of God, which is the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.
John 1:1-14, Col 1:15-19, Heb 1:1-3 and Phil 2:5-8, are good places to start that describes the divinity of Christ, the ontological unity with God but as a distinct person. If there is an unwillingness to see Christ for who He is, according to who Scriptures say He is, then there is no point of further discussion of how a man-made term adequately describes God.
Comment by lisa robinson — November 19, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
As to the First Advent of Christ, those wise men are not as many as you think, yet those who did understand Christ and His True Natuer, were tortured, beheaded stoned, hung up-side down, boiled in oil, etc. All in he Name of Christ, the Son of God.
And you are correct, it was the church, but not the church that was endowed with the Spirit of God, it was a church based on the misguided misconceptions of Man.
For the ‘revelation of god’ as they claim had already been revealed, as through His Apostles, not some new thing or doctrine based on inadequate understanding. The revelation, which IS bound by God is Truth, yet man is blinded by mans own wants to read into the Scriptures what is not there, They take text out of context and see what they want and make it speak as to what they wish…………
True in that the doctrine of the trinity exists and that by man, yet i find it far from the Truth of the Scriptures, since it re-invents a meaning out of context and out of era of those texts that it claims speaks a new revelation of God, i find it hard to teach what the Scriptures do not speak. True the Scriptures speak that God is Father and Holy Spirit, and that Christ is the Son of God. To say that Christ is God is in direct definace and in direct indifference to the Scriptures and that to the Divine revelation of God as Given by His Spirit by the Direction of God:
how ?God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with ?power. He went about doing good and healing all ?who were oppressed by the devil, ?for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. ?They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but ?God raised him on the third day and made him to ?appear, ?not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. Ac 10:38-41.
Yet if you choose to deny what the Scriptures teach to that which man teaches and claims, would have to be your call.
But ask yourself this:
Why would God want us to know that He Anointed Christ with the Spirit and with Power, if Christ was already God, as we teach then this Power and Spirit would already be possesed by Christ-wouldn’t it? would seem rather a contradiction that this same Spirit just gave Peter the understanding of and also Blessed the preaching of Peter and many were saved by it. But man does not want to read this verse or any like it for then it crashes his misguided and misconceived notions…..that are not Scriptural nor Biblical….
Comment by RB — November 19, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
hey sorry about the text, wheres the spell check and edit buttons?
Comment by RB — November 19, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Apparently no one has taken the time to teach you how to read your Bible properly. That is unfortunate.
However, if the point of this exercise is to convince me that Christ is other than God in direct contrast to the passages I cited, save your breath and my blog space. If He was not God, how could God have purchased man with His own blood? If He is not God, how could He be the perfect sacrifice? It contradicts what Scriptures say and makes absolutely no sense in context of the salvific process.
Thanks for stopping by.
ps. This is MY blog space and I do not have to be irenic, especially with those who would insist on denying Christ and that I do the same.
Comment by lisa robinson — November 19, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
HaHaHA!! Your first statement is funny.
My first response is that apparently no one has instructed you on how to accept the Spirit over man. Being that when the teachings of man contradict that which is contained in the Scriptures, then man is wrong.
However, the point of this ‘exercise’ is to show you that you should always search the Scriptures when there is fallacy contained within and surrounding ANY doctrine or teaching that man puts forward as truth.
Since man, has of late, clearly stated that the trinity IS a must for Salvation, which is NOT contained within the Scriptures, as well as, MAN has claimed that without the belief and support of the trinity that one is not saved – again a fallacy, for you will not find this contained within the Teachings of Christ nor in any Letter of the Apostles. To claim such is to change the Gospel, as well as to give support to Paul’s instructions – that that man/person is cursed.
Also, you will clearly note that at the end of v38, that God led His Spirit to have recorded for us that “God” was with Him[Christ], now why would you think that God would want this clarified for us that He[God Himself] was with Christ? Man teaches the Christ was/is God, this verse alone clearly states and supports the opposite………
Forget irenic, lets talk about the Truth of the Scriptures verses mans truth……
Yet, I have never denied Christ, by your standards of course you seem to think I have. By the Biblical teachings I have NOT, but shown what is Truth…….
Yet, you should answer the question above, I believe that that would be gracious to your position….and supportive as well.
Comment by RB — November 20, 2008 @ 9:16 am
I have nothing further to say. See 2 John 7-11
Please take your arguments elsewhere and refrain from posting here. Thank you.
Comment by lisa robinson — November 20, 2008 @ 9:32 am
??????? erchomai
1) to come
a) of persons
1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
2) to appear, make one’s appearance, come before the public
2) metaph.
a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence
b) be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto
3) to go, to follow one
2 Jn - no problem here, for Christ did not start His ministry until God sent Him, correct. Then He [Christ] came…..
Comment by RB — November 20, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Hey, i am still courious as to your answer. for all i read are you posting Scriptures with no understanding of what it states.
Yet i have shown you my thoughts…..
Comment by RB — November 20, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Lisa,
I am always intriqued by those who claim something that is not Scriptural nor Biblical. For when they start to claim those scriptutres that they think suopport them, in the end those same Scriptures condemn them…..
So,just something foryou to ponder:
you believe this way but then when contending for the FAITH, to support your belief - you “gotta go” at the Least Christ stuck around and shwon that He was In fact - the Son of God…..
Comment by RB — November 20, 2008 @ 11:56 am