Is the term "false teacher" thrown around too often?

[phat8594]

I don't think asceticism is heretical until you start making it a requirement for salvation.

I wouldn't call it heretical - but I do consider it to be dangerous...

[Raphael]

[phat8594]

Ironic, given Rem's comment referring to 'False Teachers' being used mostly by baptists and Calvinists?

(FYI, I am typically not a fan of these type of songs, or accusations, as they really add nothing to the dialogue - they just add to the obsesssion of naming names and pointing out who's "out" (i.e. who will be condemned) -- as for me, I'll leave the accusing to satan and I'll just continue to preach truth and offer correction where necessary)

[robrecht]

I wouldn't call that person a 'false teacher' - but I would see that teaching as misguided in terms of the application of 'prayerful dependence on God alone' if I am understanding you correctly.

(I am speaking in generalities - not specifics..to be clear)

How so?

I think from Colossians 2 it is clear that that there are those who put an emphasis on asceticism (along with many other things that are of no value):

Paul is speaking of 'those who insist upon asceticism', which I don't think applies to what I am thinking. I am thinking of those who voluntarily feel called to follow the evangelical counsels.

Didn't Jesus say that the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them (the wedding guests, ie, the disciples), and then they will fast on that day? As for poverty, did not Jesus tell some to sell what they own, and give the money to the poor and to come follow him, and they would have treasure in heaven?

Did not Peter leave everything to follow Jesus, prompting Jesus to promise that there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age -- houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions -- and in the age to come eternal life?

Is there no place in the church for those who feel called to live the evangelical counsels?

[Raphael]

Ironic, given Rem's comment referring to 'False Teachers' being used mostly by baptists and Calvinists?

(FYI, I am typically not a fan of these type of songs, or accusations, as they really add nothing to the dialogue - they just add to the obsesssion of naming names and pointing out who's "out" (i.e. who will be condemned) -- as for me, I'll leave the accusing to satan and I'll just continue to preach truth and offer correction where necessary)

For what it's worth Shai Linne has given a very good explanation of why he did name people in the song. Specifically because of the damage he has seen from their preaching of the Prosperity Gospel.

http://allthechildrenoflight.wordpre...by-shai-linne/

http://wadeoradio.com/shai-linne-res...s-open-letter/

[phat8594]

How so?

My short answer is basically two points:

1. It focuses on the physical more than the spiritual (IMO)
2. Because I take a stewardship view of life, with regards to the blessings God has given us

Paul is speaking of 'those who insist upon asceticism', which I don't think applies to what I am thinking. I am thinking of those who voluntarily feel called to follow the evangelical counsels.

Didn't Jesus say that the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them (the wedding guests, ie, the disciples), and then they will fast on that day? As for poverty, did not Jesus tell some to sell what they own, and give the money to the poor and to come follow him, and they would have treasure in heaven?

Did not Peter leave everything to follow Jesus, prompting Jesus to promise that there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age -- houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions -- and in the age to come eternal life?

Is there no place in the church for those who feel called to live the evangelical counsels?

So long as they do it for a purpose and not just 'because'. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that some people are called to literally give away everything and go -- but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where we are told to sell all our possessions and merely meditate and pray for God for provision.

The point is to not be constrained by the physical things of this world (such as money) and let them define our spirituality. Rather our spirituality should define the way in which we engage the things of this world. For some people, that may mean giving up everything to go and reach the lost, depending on God each day to provide the simplest of meals. And for others that mean using all the God has given them, depending on what God continues to provide, to provide for the needs of others.

So sure, there is absolutely room to give up all you have, but one should make sure that:

1. God has called them to this.
2. There is a purpose beyond one's own spirituality. (I don't believe God calls us to be spiritual for merely our sake, but for the sake of the lost -- all of God's blessings to us should always freely flow from us)

I hope that clarifies a little...

[phat8594]

For what it's worth Shai Linne has given a very good explanation of why he did name people in the song. Specifically because of the damage he has seen from their preaching of the Prosperity Gospel.

http://allthechildrenoflight.wordpre...by-shai-linne/

http://wadeoradio.com/shai-linne-res...s-open-letter/

Yes, I saw this...but also for what its worth, I still think its a poor choice and adds nothing to the dialogue. I think it is clear that Shai Linne probably doesn't even understand the differences in how certain preachers dialogue with the idea of 'prosperity'.

All in all, I think its clear that Shai Linne is in the part of the reformed camp that is obsessed with calling people false teachers. Personally I feel it is more profitable to focus on the truth than on the chaff -- I don't think its a good place to be, where you are known more for who you are against, than who you are for (Christ).

_____________________________________

It reminds me of a time when a friend began to bash TD Jakes to another pastor (who does not hold to TD Jakes type theology with regards to prosperity or charismata) about something TD Jakes said. This other pastor, however, at one time worked with a big time publisher who happened to have contact with TD Jakes:

And so the one pastor said something along the lines of 'Look, I don't agree with all of his theology -- but trust me...that guys KNOWS & WALKS WITH GOD...when that guy walks into a room, you literally feel the atmosphere shift with the presence of God' (that pretty much shut the other guy up)

[robrecht]

My short answer is basically two points:

1. It focuses on the physical more than the spiritual (IMO)

I think it is the exact opposite!

2. Because I take a stewardship view of life, with regards to the blessings God has given us

Me too, and I suspect the great majority of religious priests, monks, nuns, sisters, and brothers in the Church. Perhaps much more so than secular Christians who embrace and revel in our consumerist culture.

So long as they do it for a purpose and not just 'because'.

Do you think many, or any, embrace a life of celibate chastity, poverty, and obedience to God for no reason? Seriously?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that some people are called to literally give away everything and go -- but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where we are told to sell all our possessions and merely meditate and pray for God for provision.

Is that what you think religious priests, monks, nuns, sisters, and brothers in the Church do? I think for the most part, especially the nuns, they have founded hospitals and schools and work for social justice in a world characterized by greed and selfishness.

I too hope that clarifies a little...

Pax et bonum, robrecht

[phat8594]

I think it is the exact opposite!

To be clear, I don't like the emphasis outward manifestation (both in asceticism and wealth) verses the spiritual reality behind it.

Me too, and I suspect the great majority of religious priests, monks, nuns, sisters, and brothers in the Church. Perhaps much more so than secular Christians who embrace and revel in our consumerist culture.

What I worry about is that some (not all) may throw the baby out with the bathwater with regards to finances. In a need to reject the materialism and obsession with possession of the world, some vow to just get rid of it all. IMO, this is missing the point, and still focuses on the external - having an appearance of wisdom - but still missing the root issue.

The issue isn't the money, but the spirit behind it. You can be either rich or poor and be evil. You can be either rich or poor and be righteous. I don't believe that deciding to be poor is deciding to be any more dependent on God than one who has decided to use all of his possessions to better those around him. Being 'dependent on God' isn't a matter of choosing a life of poverty, but rather a matter of choosing a life of faith.

Do you think many, or any, embrace a life of celibate chastity, poverty, and obedience to God for no reason? Seriously?

Perhaps that was bad wording on my part. I don't believe that most people embrace a life of celibate chastity or poverty for no reason. I do believe that some (not all) end up embracing it because they see it as the only way, or best way to be 'obedient to God'.

Is that what you think religious priests, monks, nuns, sisters, and brothers in the Church do? I think for the most part, especially the nuns, they have founded hospitals and schools and work for social justice in a world characterized by greed and selfishness.

To be clear I believe that many have done great things for the world. I do not believe, however, that all of them needed to live a life of celibate chastity or poverty to found hospital and schools, or work for social justice in the world. IOW, being poor or celibate doesn't somehow qualify someone or make one better at founding hospitals & schools, or working for social justice.

In fact, often times the building of the schools and hospitals were funded by benefactors or other Christians who did not embrace poverty. Of course, money should not be the motivation - but it should be one of the many blessings that we steward. And for some people, God has absolutely called them to literally give everything and just go and serve (we have known several missionaries who have done this). But for many others, He has called to increase and multiply those finances to provide for the needs of others.

One can be greedy and selfish and be either rich or poor -- same thing goes with generosity. Again, its not the money that is the issue, its the spirit behind it.

[RBerman]

All in all, I think its clear that Shai Linne is in the part of the reformed camp that is obsessed with calling people false teachers. Personally I feel it is more profitable to focus on the truth than on the chaff -- I don't think its a good place to be, where you are known more for who you are against, than who you are for (Christ).

Hm. Out of dozens of songs he's recorded, one of them deals with the topic of false teachers. The rest teach various doctrinal truths. I don't see that as obsessive.

[phat8594]

Hm. Out of dozens of songs he's recorded, one of them deals with the topic of false teachers. The rest teach various doctrinal truths. I don't see that as obsessive.

To be clear RB, I meant to point to a faction within the reformed circle that is somewhat obsessive with naming names and hunting false teachers. (or at least this has been my experience with certain YRR groups -- as of yet, I have assumed this only subset of the reformed circle)

I still think the song has little wisdom behind it in its approach or tact.


PS, the obsessive tendency, IMO, isn't shown in a number of songs, but in a readiness and eagerness to call people 'false teachers'. I think Rem mentioned earlier what he noticed as a tendency of some to throw the term around more than others. And some, unfortunately have made it their calling card... (perhaps they think that calling other people wrong, somehow makes them right, or defender of the truth? IDK )

[phat8594]

Hm. Out of dozens of songs he's recorded, one of them deals with the topic of false teachers. The rest teach various doctrinal truths. I don't see that as obsessive.

I just stumbled upon this from my youtube channels, and thought that it was fitting given the conversation. IMO, this sort of approach carries much more wisdom than writing a song that essentially repeats JMac phrases (if you are living your best life now your going to hell) and calls people 'false teachers' with little if any specific reason given:

[robrecht]

To be clear, I don't like the emphasis outward manifestation (both in asceticism and wealth) verses the spiritual reality behind it.

What I worry about is that some (not all) may throw the baby out with the bathwater with regards to finances. In a need to reject the materialism and obsession with possession of the world, some vow to just get rid of it all. IMO, this is missing the point, and still focuses on the external - having an appearance of wisdom - but still missing the root issue.

Are you thinking of anyone or anything in particular? Do you have much experience of the life of religious or monastic communities in the church? OR are you just thinking about this in abstract terms of how this might be wrong under some conditions or do you have some specific experience

The issue isn't the money, but the spirit behind it. You can be either rich or poor and be evil. You can be either rich or poor and be righteous. I don't believe that deciding to be poor is deciding to be any more dependent on God than one who has decided to use all of his possessions to better those around him. Being 'dependent on God' isn't a matter of choosing a life of poverty, but rather a matter of choosing a life of faith.

Of course, I don't know anyone who says it is a matter of being more or less dependent upon God, but merely of following God's will for that person.

Perhaps that was bad wording on my part. I don't believe that most people embrace a life of celibate chastity or poverty for no reason. I do believe that some (not all) end up embracing it because they see it as the only way, or best way to be 'obedient to God'.

Really? You know of people who do this without individual and communal discernment of God's will or calling, typically called a vocation?

To be clear I believe that many have done great things for the world. I do not believe, however, that all of them needed to live a life of celibate chastity or poverty to found hospital and schools, or work for social justice in the world. IOW, being poor or celibate doesn't somehow qualify someone or make one better at founding hospitals & schools, or working for social justice.

Of course not. A very wealthy person could donate a lot more money for such a cause or may pay for him or herself or others to be trained as doctors in order to serve in such hospitals. I did not say that nuns, brothers, or sisters were more qualified. Rather, I was responding to your characterization of them merely meditating and praying to God for provisions. I think that was an unfair characterization that did not appreciate the commitment to work and service of others.

In fact, often times the building of the schools and hospitals were funded by benefactors or other Christians who did not embrace poverty. Of course, money should not be the motivation - but it should be one of the many blessings that we steward. And for some people, God has absolutely called them to literally give everything and just go and serve (we have known several missionaries who have done this). But for many others, He has called to increase and multiply those finances to provide for the needs of others.

One can be greedy and selfish and be either rich or poor -- same thing goes with generosity. Again, its not the money that is the issue, its the spirit behind it.

Of course.

[phat8594]

Are you thinking of anyone or anything in particular? Do you have much experience of the life of religious or monastic communities in the church? OR are you just thinking about this in abstract terms of how this might be wrong under some conditions or do you have some specific experience

Well, I have limited experience within the RCC tradition, and I have seen others who pretty much just decide 'God wants me to be poor' and essentially don't work - of course this doesn't bode well Biblically.

For those who forsake what they have based on an actual call of God versus an idea of ascetic righteousness is not what I think of as dangerous.

Embracing the call God has on our life is what I really care about. I have just seen some use the 'ascetic' mindset as a 'self-righteous' trophy and an excuse to not work. I have also seen some go into the RCC priesthood as they really saw going into the priesthood as the best way / only way to serve God (later to leave it realizing that they made the decision withi limited knowledge). There are also those who leave successful businesses to go into the pastorate, to essentially fail miserably (as they also saw being a 'pastor' as the only way to be in 'ministry' or to 'serve God')

To be clear I am not stating this as accusation to those who have experienced a true call of God.

Of course, I don't know anyone who says it is a matter of being more or less dependent upon God, but merely of following God's will for that person.

If it is the will of God, great!

Really? You know of people who do this without individual and communal discernment of God's will or calling, typically called a vocation?

Unfortunately I have seen people who do so under misguided perceptions, and with poor discernment (see above).

But done appropriately - yeah, no problem with that.

Of course not. A very wealthy person could donate a lot more money for such a cause or may pay for him or herself or others to be trained as doctors in order to serve in such hospitals. I did not say that nuns, brothers, or sisters were more qualified. Rather, I was responding to your characterization of them merely meditating and praying to God for provisions. I think that was an unfair characterization that did not appreciate the commitment to work and service of others.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to give a characterization of all those who enter monastic life, or church service.

It seems as though we are basically talking about two sides of the same coin. So long as the spirit behind it is good, then that is what matters! I was merely trying to separate between the outward manifestation as an end goal and as an expression of the Spirit. So I don't see the outward manifestation as spiritual, but the Spirit at work behind it. I think sometimes we can confuse a work of the Spirit, with the Spirit itself - just like many people can and do end up seeking a work of God, rather than God Himself. Is that clearer? I hope so!

[robrecht]

Well, I have limited experience within the RCC tradition, and I have seen others who pretty much just decide 'God wants me to be poor' and essentially don't work - of course this doesn't bode well Biblically.

For those who forsake what they have based on an actual call of God versus an idea of ascetic righteousness is not what I think of as dangerous.

Embracing the call God has on our life is what I really care about. I have just seen some use the 'ascetic' mindset as a 'self-righteous' trophy and an excuse to not work. I have also seen some go into the RCC priesthood as they really saw going into the priesthood as the best way / only way to serve God (later to leave it realizing that they made the decision withi limited knowledge). There are also those who leave successful businesses to go into the pastorate, to essentially fail miserably (as they also saw being a 'pastor' as the only way to be in 'ministry' or to 'serve God')

To be clear I am not stating this as accusation to those who have experienced a true call of God.

If it is the will of God, great!

Unfortunately I have seen people who do so under misguided perceptions, and with poor discernment (see above).

But done appropriately - yeah, no problem with that.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to give a characterization of all those who enter monastic life, or church service.

It seems as though we are basically talking about two sides of the same coin. So long as the spirit behind it is good, then that is what matters! I was merely trying to separate between the outward manifestation as an end goal and as an expression of the Spirit. So I don't see the outward manifestation as spiritual, but the Spirit at work behind it. I think sometimes we can confuse a work of the Spirit, with the Spirit itself - just like many people can and do end up seeking a work of God, rather than God Himself. Is that clearer? I hope so!

I only have experience of the evangelical counsels within the Catholic church and a couple of people in the Anglican and Orthodox churches. Before one is allowed to take solemn or perpetual vows, one typically spends several years in discernment, psychological testing, and life in more than one community, and the community must also think that you are a good candidate in your discernment and aptitude for this lifestyle. Unlike 'religious life' (which can be either monastic or in the world), the priesthood itself does not does not require vows to God (poverty, chastity, obedience), but merely promises to a bishop of obedience with respect to ministry within the diocese and celibacy as a legal requirement for priestly ordination. No vow of poverty, but merely an expectation of a simple lifestyle as would befit any Christian. Training as a diocesan priest also takes several years, but that is training for ministry and not discernment of one's calling to the evangelical counsels. Of course, there is discernment of a vocation for the priesthood, both by the candidate as well as by the diocese. But, of course, people sometimes make mistakes when trying to discern God's will. Because of the shortage of priests and seminarians, it seems that some dioceses may feel pressured to too readily accept candidates of rather poor suitability for a life of ministry or a life of celibacy. Most priests are now living alone rather than even in an informal community of fellow priests in the same parish. Celibacy should always be lived in community. This is part of my reasoning in thinking that the Catholic church should allow married and women priests. Because the faithful deserve the very best candidates for priestly ministry.