If Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), how can we be sure we're not following someone who appears “biblical” but is actually a false teacher?

[bdavidc]

15 hours ago, warrior12 said:

 

Though you did not answer my question in full, that's alright.

As believers, not everyone has the same interlect capacities to understand scripture as written. Yes, the word is the final authorative to follow, but God has given men gifts to help others who are weak and need nuturing and then becoming more mature.  You said the tools "Can" be helpful and I do agree.  A seed is planted, then watered and grows into that wonderful plant.  It is up to the believer in how he chooses to the pathway that is outline biblically to live and mature.  

A man can willfully fool others, but not himslef, as his concience will prick him to the truths.   So, in your opening post, how do we discern the truth from error. Well the bible says 

 

Proverbs 3:5-6      Amplified Bible, Classic Edition

⁵ Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding.

⁶ In all your ways know, recognize, and acknowledge Him, and He will direct and make straight and plain your paths.

You’re right to point to the Bible as the final authority, because that is exactly how we discern truth from error, by testing everything against God’s Word. But we must also recognize that human conscience is not reliable on its own. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?” A man can absolutely deceive himself, and many do. Proverbs 14:12 warns, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” That’s why we are told not to lean on our own understanding, just as you quoted from Proverbs 3:5–6, but instead to submit fully to what God has already revealed.

The Bible tells us how to grow in truth, through the Word. Jesus said in John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth.” Spiritual maturity does not come from trusting in gifted men, but from abiding in the Scriptures. Acts 17:11 praises the Bereans because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” God does use people to teach and encourage, but we are never to accept their words blindly, everything must be tested against the written Word. 1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” So the key is not just acknowledging Scripture as authoritative, but actually going to it daily, prayerfully, and with a heart ready to obey. That is how we avoid deception and grow in spiritual discernment.

[bdavidc]

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

I did not ever say (nor even suggest) "both sides can be equally valid if they both sincerely believe their interpretation". Nor did I ever claim that sincerity equals truth. Are really you so eager to win an argument that you are set on repeatedly misrepresenting my provided position? 

In the context of sincere disagreement, the reason for discussion/debate is to test the rational quality of each argument. Nothing is tested or achieved from you simply claiming to be telling "the truth". Everyone thinks that what they believe is "the truth" (otherwise they wouldn't believe it). You use scripture to support your claim, and they use scripture to support their claim. You claim to be telling "the truth", and they claim to be telling "the truth". All such claims are wasted words - and only serve to stall the testing process.  

The point you "missed" is that there is no logical merit in simply declaring yourself the lone champion of "God's revealed truth". Nor is there logical merit in simply declaring that their disagreement with you is causing "divisions and offenses" (since they can also claim that your disagreement with them is causing "divisions and offenses" against "God's revealed truth"). The only logical merit is found in the rational quality of the provided supporting arguments. 

 

I never once claimed we should respond to "error" with "silence". 

 

That's not entirely accurate.

What you have done in this conversation is present scriptures which don't say exactly what you need them to say. You thus read your interpretation into them to get to what you want from them. 

For example, the Bible says; "Test all things. Hold fast what is good". 
- Then, you say, "Hold fast what is good" means "reject falsehood" (which is 1 degree removed from what the verse actually says). Note that the verse says, "hold fast what is good". It does not say anything about rejecting falsehood. You therefore added information to the verse that does not exist in the text itself. Anyways - moving on. 
- Your argument continues: "reject" means condemn/accuse (degree 2 away from what is stated in the verse). 
- And furthermore, "falsehood" means any disagreement with our understanding of scripture - i.e. anyone who happens to arrive at a different conclusion to us (degree 3). 
Therefore, "Hold fast what is good" actually means we should be actively, hyper-critically, publicly condemning Christians who disagree with us. 

And that is how you rationalize your way to make the verse support your position that we should be readily denigrating Christians as "false teachers". Yet all the verse said was, "Hold fast what is good". 
 

 

OK - So here is where we stand:
I encourage more caution against denigrating Christians as “false teachers”, and you slander me a being relativist.

Having therefore done my due diligence, I have put your arguments to the test and found them to be not “good”.

In this conversation you have:
1 – commonly employed a variety of logic fallacies.
2 – constantly misrepresented and mischaracterized my stated position.
3 – manipulated scripture beyond what it states – then claimed your position to be “straight from the Bible”.
4 – postured yourself as the inerrant arbiter of Christian truth (i.e. “God’s revealed truth”).
And when challenged, you:
5 – resort to casting false accusations against the one who disagrees with you.

As such, based on the standard of argument presented in this conversation, I have determined for myself that you lack the credibility/maturity to act as an authoritative judge over Christians (and/or Christian doctrine); i.e. with the authority to denigrate other Christians as “false teachers”.

I would obviously not presume to castigate you as a "false teacher". I would, however, for the moment at-least, dissuade those under my care from accepting your accusations against other Christians at face value.

 

Let’s be clear. You’ve accused me of misrepresenting your position, yet you haven’t shown specifically where I did so. I never said you quoted the phrase “both sides can be equally valid” or that “sincerity equals truth,” but your argument implied that by rejecting the authority of Scripture as the final judge and instead elevating human reasoning as the test of truth. The Bible does not tell us to decide truth based on whose argument sounds better, it says, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17), and commands us to “search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). You claim that because different people use Scripture, we should treat it like a debate of ideas. But 2 Timothy 2:15 says we are to “rightly divide the word of truth.” Not every interpretation is equal just because someone uses a verse. We are to test teachings against the whole counsel of God.

You say I added to the text when I interpreted “hold fast that which is good” as rejecting falsehood. But that’s not adding, it’s context. The next verse says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). That makes it clear that holding to what is good also means rejecting what is false or evil. Romans 16:17 commands us to “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.” That’s not personal animosity, it’s biblical instruction. The Bible repeatedly calls out false teachers, and tells us to do the same. Titus 1:9 says a faithful elder must “exhort and convince the gainsayers.” That’s not tearing others down, it’s obedience.

You claim I’ve positioned myself as the arbiter of truth, but I haven’t spoken on my own authority, I’ve pointed to Scripture alone. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given for “doctrine, reproof, correction,” and that includes calling out error. If I’ve misrepresented your view, quote the exact line where I did it, and explain how it was false. If I’ve failed to answer your question, then tell me what specific question I missed. But don’t accuse me of slander when I’ve simply applied Scripture. If God’s Word calls something false, I will say so, not to elevate myself, but because I fear the Lord more than the approval of men (Galatians 1:10).

[bdavidc]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

I did not ever say (nor even suggest) "both sides can be equally valid if they both sincerely believe their interpretation". Nor did I ever claim that sincerity equals truth. Are really you so eager to win an argument that you are set on repeatedly misrepresenting my provided position? 

In the context of sincere disagreement, the reason for discussion/debate is to test the rational quality of each argument. Nothing is tested or achieved from you simply claiming to be telling "the truth". Everyone thinks that what they believe is "the truth" (otherwise they wouldn't believe it). You use scripture to support your claim, and they use scripture to support their claim. You claim to be telling "the truth", and they claim to be telling "the truth". All such claims are wasted words - and only serve to stall the testing process.  

The point you "missed" is that there is no logical merit in simply declaring yourself the lone champion of "God's revealed truth". Nor is there logical merit in simply declaring that their disagreement with you is causing "divisions and offenses" (since they can also claim that your disagreement with them is causing "divisions and offenses" against "God's revealed truth"). The only logical merit is found in the rational quality of the provided supporting arguments. 

 

I never once claimed we should respond to "error" with "silence". 

 

That's not entirely accurate.

What you have done in this conversation is present scriptures which don't say exactly what you need them to say. You thus read your interpretation into them to get to what you want from them. 

For example, the Bible says; "Test all things. Hold fast what is good". 
- Then, you say, "Hold fast what is good" means "reject falsehood" (which is 1 degree removed from what the verse actually says). Note that the verse says, "hold fast what is good". It does not say anything about rejecting falsehood. You therefore added information to the verse that does not exist in the text itself. Anyways - moving on. 
- Your argument continues: "reject" means condemn/accuse (degree 2 away from what is stated in the verse). 
- And furthermore, "falsehood" means any disagreement with our understanding of scripture - i.e. anyone who happens to arrive at a different conclusion to us (degree 3). 
Therefore, "Hold fast what is good" actually means we should be actively, hyper-critically, publicly condemning Christians who disagree with us. 

And that is how you rationalize your way to make the verse support your position that we should be readily denigrating Christians as "false teachers". Yet all the verse said was, "Hold fast what is good". 
 

 

OK - So here is where we stand:
I encourage more caution against denigrating Christians as “false teachers”, and you slander me a being relativist.

Having therefore done my due diligence, I have put your arguments to the test and found them to be not “good”.

In this conversation you have:
1 – commonly employed a variety of logic fallacies.
2 – constantly misrepresented and mischaracterized my stated position.
3 – manipulated scripture beyond what it states – then claimed your position to be “straight from the Bible”.
4 – postured yourself as the inerrant arbiter of Christian truth (i.e. “God’s revealed truth”).
And when challenged, you:
5 – resort to casting false accusations against the one who disagrees with you.

As such, based on the standard of argument presented in this conversation, I have determined for myself that you lack the credibility/maturity to act as an authoritative judge over Christians (and/or Christian doctrine); i.e. with the authority to denigrate other Christians as “false teachers”.

I would obviously not presume to castigate you as a "false teacher". I would, however, for the moment at-least, dissuade those under my care from accepting your accusations against other Christians at face value.

 

You claimed to have tested my arguments and found them “not good.” That’s your opinion, not Scripture. Let’s address your list directly:

1 – “Commonly employed a variety of logic fallacies.”

You’ve thrown out the term “logical fallacies” without citing one specific example. What you call a fallacy is often just a biblical truth you refuse to accept. I’ve consistently used Scripture to support every point. If you think a verse was misused, then quote it and show it from the Bible, not your preferences.

2 – “Constantly misrepresented and mischaracterized my stated position.”

I’ve addressed your statements as presented. If you feel misrepresented, the honest thing to do is quote what I said and explain how it was false. Broad accusations without proof don’t hold any weight, especially when I’ve quoted Scripture openly and directly.

3 – “Manipulated Scripture beyond what it states.”

No, I applied Scripture exactly as it was written, in context, and supported every claim with clear verses. “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) is immediately followed by “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (v. 22), which supports rejecting falsehood. You call that manipulation, but the Bible calls it discernment.

4 – “Postured yourself as the inerrant arbiter of Christian truth.”

I have never claimed to be inerrant. I’ve quoted the inerrant Word of God. The real problem here is that you don’t like someone speaking with authority from Scripture. But 2 Timothy 4:2 commands us to “preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort.” That’s not posturing, it’s obedience.

5 – “Resort to casting false accusations against the one who disagrees.”

Calling out false doctrine is not slander. It’s commanded. Titus 1:13 says, “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” If your teachings or defense of others contradict Scripture, I will speak against them, not to attack you personally, but to defend the truth of God’s Word.

Now you say I lack the “credibility or maturity” to judge doctrine or recognize false teachers. Let me be clear, I’m not operating by your standards. I’m obeying Scripture, which tells me to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3) and to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11). Whether you respect it or not, I will continue to do exactly what God has commanded. I don’t need your endorsement, your evaluation, or your permission. I stand on the Word of God.

[lrs68]

The Holy Spirit of God Gift of Discernment judges all manners and matters concerning the Heavenly and earthly realms.  It's literally God judging everything we see and hear while alerting to us whether we should believe or reject the information.   

 

A person has the ability to sense through Discernment if they are being lied to, if the information is Godly, if the information is true, or if it is false.

 

I still will research anything brought forth when presented as Biblical truth even should I sense from God it's the truth I am hearing or seeing because as a Student of God I want to see the connection.   Even though I read the Bible on a daily consistent basis and have for years and I generally could be familiar with the subject matter being preached\taught\presented I still will research it for myself.

 

And who knows, I might just learn a new way to understand the passage or how to explain it.   I am here to learn from God as His Disciple and that means I am a student until God takes me to my eternal Home.

[warrior12]

On 5/8/2025 at 1:40 PM, bdavidc said:

God’s Word is not a matter of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)

I have heard it said that it is very difficult to translate Greek to English, so even the the Modern English bibles that we read today , has gone through a lot of translation, which I would not say is an  attempt to change the original words, but it has it's own steps, that we trust as the inspired word of God.   There are videos that show how, the bible we now have has gone through the many different stages that we real challanges. 

So it is not a matter of having our own interpretation, but searching out the truths as we read the word.  Yes, the word is our standard, but that does not mean we discard what men who has the God given gifts to deliver messages to help others to understand scripture passages that are hard for them to comprehend.  The untimate choice is yours as you walk in your journey and only you the individual knows what in your heart and how you respond to teachings and as you study the word.   

So, what do you understand by Matthew 5:30

 

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

 

Edited May 9 by warrior12

[bdavidc]

28 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

So, what do you understand by Matthew 5:30

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

You're quoting 2 Peter 1:20 to argue that we must take Matthew 5:30 literally, as if Jesus is telling people to physically cut off their hand. But that’s not rightly dividing the Word of God. 2 Peter 1:20 says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” That verse is not about forcing a literal interpretation onto every figure of speech. It’s saying that Scripture doesn’t come from human imagination, it originates from God, as the very next verse (2 Peter 1:21) explains. Now let’s be honest about Matthew 5:30. Jesus is clearly using strong metaphorical language to make a spiritual point: if something in your life causes you to sin, get rid of it, take radical action. But Jesus also taught that sin doesn’t start with the hand or the eye, it comes from the heart (Mark 7:21–23). So physically cutting off a body part won’t fix the real issue. That would contradict the rest of Scripture. Romans 6:12–13 tells us to yield our members to righteousness, not cut them off. Colossians 3:5 tells us to mortify the deeds of the flesh, not mutilate the body. If we take your method of interpretation and apply it consistently, we would all be blind and crippled and still sinful, because we’d never have addressed the real problem: the sinful heart. So if you’re going to quote 2 Peter 1:20, then be sure to let the Bible interpret itself, not force a private, wooden reading that ignores the full counsel of God.

[warrior12]

1 hour ago, bdavidc said:

Now let’s be honest about Matthew 5:30. Jesus is clearly using strong metaphorical language to make a spiritual point: if something in your life causes you to sin, get rid of it, take radical action.

So , isn't that the point.  You are making an informed decision on what scripture is saying. Not everyone would see it your way. I posted that verse as to the obvious, that no one would really go cutting off their hands, but it is the word of the Lord and it all depend on how one see a scripture verse. 

Suppose for a moment, a new believer now on a journey reading and studying the word, comes across that very verse, for sure he would ponder and search out the meaning, not only by reading the word, but by other believers who are mature or as in modern marvel of the internet what other commentries or teachers may have to say. Later on, he may be able to teach and guide babes too, as he came to understanding.  

It is the journey of striving to stay on the straight and narrow pathways.  The holy spirit would play its part in that teaching and setting the pathways straight too.  

Of course their are wolves in sheep clothing. Did not the Lord give men gifts to teach, discern, and others. Romans 12:6 .

When you encounter spiritual warfare, then you come face to face with the enemy, you then gain experience from those encounter to recongnize the schemes and plots and methods satan and his host comes to tempt, seduce and draw men back into his den.  So, would I discount what I have come across, no , I can't or I would be lying to myself.  

I asked you in one reply. Do you believe a believer can loose his salvation. What does the scripture say about this. OSAS.  You well know, it is one of the most discussed topic with bible believers.  Most likely you would have your beliefs as how you see the word in that regard and another would see it differently, you can't deny that, otherwise make your point as to the truths of which way you see it.

  Not changing the topic here, but to reinforce the point of how each believer reading the very scripture you are reading would have difference of outcomes.  Are they being decietful or ???

 

 

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, bdavidc said:

You’ve accused me of misrepresenting your position, yet you haven’t shown specifically where I did so

When I first quote you - and then say that you are "misrepresenting" me, that is a specific example of you doing this. Likewise, whenever I first quote you and say something like "I never said that" or "I didn't ever claim that", these are direct references to specific examples of you "misrepresenting" me. 

There are numerous such examples of this in each of my responses to you in this thread.

 

10 hours ago, bdavidc said:

I never said you quoted the phrase “both sides can be equally valid” or that “sincerity equals truth,”

Are you trying to be clever? You are failing.

When you provide a rebuttal response to a post, simple logic suggests you are attributing your rebuttal to the argument of the one who made the post you quoted. Therefore, by you arguing against the abovementioned positions in responses to my posts, you are falsely (and deceptively) assigning these positions to me. This is rudimentary logic - and your repeated breach of this well-understood, universal thought convention amounts to deliberate dishonesty - as is your current attempt to pretend you were not attributing this position to me.

 

10 hours ago, bdavidc said:

your argument implied that by rejecting the authority of Scripture as the final judge and instead elevating human reasoning as the test of truth

Note: SPECIFIC EXAMPLE!!!

Nothing whatsoever in anything I've written "implied", nor suggested, nor insinuated (etc.) that I condone "rejecting the authority of Scripture as the final judge".

This is something that your "human reasoning" made up (i.e. read-into my position) - for the specific purpose of "misrepresenting" me - dishonestly painting me as someone who disrespects the authority of scripture so you can attack that lie instead of my true position.

Since you are so determined to employ this overtly dishonest strategy, I see no value in further discussion - and will be disengaging.

 

 

[Michael37]

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

When I first quote you - and then say that you are "misrepresenting" me, that is a specific example of you doing this. Likewise, whenever I first quote you and say something like "I never said that" or "I didn't ever claim that", these are direct references to specific examples of you "misrepresenting" me. 

There are numerous such examples of this in each of my responses to you in this thread.

 

Are you trying to be clever? You are failing.

When you provide a rebuttal response to a post, simple logic suggests you are attributing your rebuttal to the argument of the one who made the post you quoted. Therefore, by you arguing against the abovementioned positions in responses to my posts, you are falsely (and deceptively) assigning these positions to me. This is rudimentary logic - and your repeated breach of this well-understood, universal thought convention amounts to deliberate dishonesty - as is your current attempt to pretend you were not attributing this position to me.

 

Note: SPECIFIC EXAMPLE!!!

Nothing whatsoever in anything I've written "implied", nor suggested, nor insinuated (etc.) that I condone "rejecting the authority of Scripture as the final judge".

This is something that your "human reasoning" made up (i.e. read-into my position) - for the specific purpose of "misrepresenting" me - dishonestly painting me as someone who disrespects the authority of scripture so you can attack that lie instead of my true position.

Since you are so determined to employ this overtly dishonest strategy, I see no value in further discussion - and will be disengaging.

Thankyou for your sound assessment and decision to disengage, @Tristen

Please report any further instances of gaslighting and misrepresentation in this thread and in others, so that more guidance can be given to those breaching the rules on this. 

 

[enoob57]

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

When I first quote you - and then say that you are "misrepresenting" me, that is a specific example of you doing this. Likewise, whenever I first quote you and say something like "I never said that" or "I didn't ever claim that", these are direct references to specific examples of you "misrepresenting" me. 

There are numerous such examples of this in each of my responses to you in this thread.

 

Are you trying to be clever? You are failing.

When you provide a rebuttal response to a post, simple logic suggests you are attributing your rebuttal to the argument of the one who made the post you quoted. Therefore, by you arguing against the abovementioned positions in responses to my posts, you are falsely (and deceptively) assigning these positions to me. This is rudimentary logic - and your repeated breach of this well-understood, universal thought convention amounts to deliberate dishonesty - as is your current attempt to pretend you were not attributing this position to me.

 

Note: SPECIFIC EXAMPLE!!!

Nothing whatsoever in anything I've written "implied", nor suggested, nor insinuated (etc.) that I condone "rejecting the authority of Scripture as the final judge".

This is something that your "human reasoning" made up (i.e. read-into my position) - for the specific purpose of "misrepresenting" me - dishonestly painting me as someone who disrespects the authority of scripture so you can attack that lie instead of my true position.

Since you are so determined to employ this overtly dishonest strategy, I see no value in further discussion - and will be disengaging.

 

 

Those of us that know Scripture know you are a man of Scripture