How Do We Define Sound Teaching?

Hi! My question is "How do we define sound teaching?"

What authority do we appeal to in order to know if a teaching is true or not? I ask this because it seems to me every christian claims guidance by the Holy Spirit into truths and yet I have not met two Christians yet who agree on everything.

I also see, when two Christians meet with differing views, at least one of them will harbor the thought that the other Christian "isn't there yet".

Because we are not Catholic we cannot look to the organized church to define our teaching for us.

We can claim the bible will show us sound teaching but again I would like to point out the extreme disharmony between believers and how strongly interpretation plays into that. Look at the doctrine of original sin, even on these boards people have completely differing views on the very foundation of why we need salvation in the first place. I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith.

An objection I hear to the disharmonious christians is that "it's just the small stuff." But didn't Christ call us to be one MIND? How then are there so many different minds in Christianity?

Do we appeal to the men on this site as an authority? I don't see any Catholic priests on here, I guess none fit the "standard" (the one I'm calling into question). But not even the ones the died for Christ? Or what about Joyce Meyer? What standard does she not meet? (Certainly not mine, I just picked a name as an example)

WHAT STANDARD ARE WE GOING BY? And again, if you say the bible I must ask whose interpretation then are we going by?

It truly seems like we "are all like sheep gone astray" and "each man does what is right in his own eyes."

----: Re-reading this it appears to me I might seem hostile. I am not looking for a fight, just an answer. This seems to me to be a big problem in christendom and I would love to hear some thoughts on the matter.

I risk being misunderstood or being incomprehensible here. I hope neither.

Absent the bond of fellowship (in person) and the self-denying love of one another, it seems to me we can't be sound. Outside of that context, teaching that goes deep into us is probably not going to happen. If it doesn't transform us, it is not sound. Can we even define it? Can we, here, in an online forum, really nail it down?

I am made firm, complete and rooted in the truth of Scripture in the context of the assembly of believers. Not that I do not comprehend truth outside the assembly, but I do not comprehend it "soundly" and deeply and transformatively otherwise, or at least not often.

Brother Tyler,

You've touched on a vital subject and I believe you're honest in your inquiry. While I prayerfully pondered this question, it seems there are many answers that could be given tho the simple one (for me) is this; it's a heart issue. A heart that loves the truth and seeks to submit to it and obey it will always find it. We always find what we seek don't we? And in this seeking and finding the truth of our intent is revealed. For example, do we really seek righteousness or just to be right? As a motivation, these two are inherently incompatible. I have a brother that is well studied in the scriptures and for a while lived a holy life, full of joy and contentment, marked by grace and faithfulness, a kind and loving soul. Tho along the way the focus shifted and during a difficult season he began to exhibit tendencies of wanting to be justified (right) in what he was doing rather than being justified by resting in what Christ has already done. Honestly it is one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed. Now if someone attempts to point out the inconsistencies, he becomes defensive and aggressively so. You guessed it, people stopped trying to point it out directly to him and rather just pray/intercede on his behalf. And you wanna know what I see when I look at him?.... Me, I see me,... because we all have blind spots don't we? I mean I can see his quite clearly but that makes me all the more aware that I have some too, that I can't see. Isn't that true of us all? Which is why I agree with brother Tim in that we need other members of Christs body to minister to us, to pray for us, to correct us and gently so. Without the fellowship of an assembly we will, in most cases, get off the way and get tangled up in the semantics of our own subjectivity. Having said this we can't rely upon the assembly but rather upon God, and His work in and thru the assembly as well as how He disciplines us and leads us privately in our personal fellowship with Him. Even in this context there still exists the possibility of getting it wrong on certain matters,... just look at the 7 letters to the churches in Revelations- only one was without rebuke or correction, meaning as the rest had some blind spots. But look at how Jesus was faithful to bring their attention to these "wrong doctrines" and not only gave space for repentance but also specific direction on how to get back into "sound doctrine/practice", surely He does the same for us if our heart is right before Him.

In any case I hope this is a fruitful inquiry as I believe it to potentially make a real difference, if that's true then we can be sure the enemy has a vested interest in stirring up trouble and causing confusion. So I pray we'd all be mindful there's far more at stake here than our desire to "be right" and somehow win what Christ has already won by His righteousness:)

RE /// ...and yet I have not met two Christians yet who agree on everything.///

For now we see through a glass, darkly

RE : /// I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith.///

The Writings in the New Testament they are Scripture.

As with the Old Testament, so is the New :

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Writings of the church Fathers are not inspired.

The New Testament is,
And as Peter Pointed out about Pauls Writings, so are the rest of the Writings in the New Testament : they are Scripture.

How did Jesus read the Scriptures of His day ?

He paid attention to even the minute details including the very tense of a verb.
He
said to the Sadducees :

"Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

This is how Jesus proved the Resurrection of the dead
using the Scriptures :

"have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?"

Because the Scriptures said " I am " rather than saying "I was"
Was what Jesus used to prove that the Scriptures taught the Resurrection of the Dead.

clarity

Martyr,

Quote" I would also like to point out what the new testament is: a collection of first century letters written by the church fathers. It was never meant to be a comprehensive guide to the faith."

Proudpapa has well stated the error in your thinking here, but I would like to add something...
If your statement above is true, then you are left with either a situation 'where everyone does as seems right in his own eyes" as per the book of Judges, or you have some ecclesiastical authority that claims to be THE truth as per the RC Pope.

To clarify, the New Testament is, together with the OT the word of God given to men to (as John puts it) "believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that believing you should have life in His name".
The NT is 'Scripture'. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 regarding the scriptures, "they are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Thank you all for responding!! The problem I have with bible being the authority is it is so easily subject to different interpretations and view. It is not something that can be a solid standard, only an interpretation of it can be solid. There is no consensus on what any verse means. So if the scriptures make one wise how is it that this wisdom (which surely must be a standard) is so radically different per person? Someone quoted that we see in a glass darkly, but shouldn't we be seeing the same thing if we are all looking at the same word and the same Christ? Paul urged us to be of one mind in Christ, so it must have been how the early church was. Perhaps the Roman Heirarchy isn't an evil idea? Many of the church fathers attest to it.

A topic to explore my question: the apocrypha. Most of us do not recognize the apocryphal writings however many of the church fathers did and so did the church until Luther. Even after it was still accepted until the church of England took a stand against it. So then, if the bible is an authority, which one? If you say the current 66 bible most of us are now using then you admit to the authority of the church of England, an authority none of us (to my knowledge) recognizes. We can defend our 66 book bible but none of us made that decision, others did long ago and now we accept it and defend it.

There is a problem here. We are the fruits of decisions made long ago for us in thought and doctrine and many things we accept and defend as being "part of the faith" may have been ideas of men and these ideas over time were accepted and then over time made the "way it is" and anything else is heretical. Who can search through 2000 years of history to find the truth apart from our 2000 year influenced minds and feelings? Does anyone else think it might be very important to do that? How else will we know we stand on TRUTH and not bias?

Martyr, question. How long have you been a Christian? Because I think the questions you are asking indicate a developmental stage in your faith and walk. I would lie if I said I did not once have similar questions. Yet, I look back and know where I was in my Christian growth then. I have other questions I wrestle now. I think one day I might look back again and think, "Boy, I am thankful the Lord lead me through those minefields and pits I did not even see and not letting me blow myself up or fall away."

I understand your discouragement ( I can definitely relate)
But I disagree with your conclusion.

'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

In other words Faith is the inward certainty on things that can not be simply proven by things of sight.

I know that The Scriptures are true because they resonate with my spirit that they are indeed true.

Many people suppress the Truth that they hold.

Because they hold the truth deep down, is why they are guilty.

So when dealing with an athiest we have lost the battle if we try to argue or convince him of things intellectually or of sight.

So we appeal to his conscience that we know also holds truth.

Now Christians have an 'unction from the Holy One, and... know all things.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

At the same time we also see through a glass darkly,

That is we do not always intellectually recognize the truth that we know . even as Christians

And so that is why I like reading/listening to Preachers such as Spurgeon because They often times will say something that resonates with me as truth that I always deep down new but intellectually did not relieze.

But sometimes what they say does not resonate as truth and that is where the discerning becomes difficult

So we are on a constant journey of discovering truth that we deep down know.

What hinders this , It is when we bring our conscience under the Subjection of other men. Other men are to point us to our Head they are not to serve as or cover over our Head.

The divisions and problems through out church history has been because leaders and teachers have so often not pointed people to there Head but instead have served as the head themselves and have covered over other mens heads.

Read first Cor real careful , Paul talks about this subject throughout that Book.

clarity

I was born again in 2011. The problem is I have never received a satisfactory answer to these questions. I feel we as Christians sweep things under the rug to preserve our sense of security in our faith. I don't want that, I want the Truth of the matter. I see a lot of untruth (according to Christ and the scriptures) within the church. I refuse to feed upon that without knowing where it comes from.

I see what your saying with these being developmental questions, they have been with me for some time now because I have yet to meet someone that can answer them (thinking specifically of the apocrypha post and the source of our beliefs). I know the answers Google gives for how protestants defend their faith but they all seem stretched and very "convenient" to their beliefs and to what they were taught. But if we are taught something then we will see it, how then can we ever claim to see clearly? What If they are wrong? Too much is subjective.

P.s I refer to protestants in the third person, I am not Catholic but I am making that distinction.

I do not think that this will produce faith in someone who doubts but I believe it can strengthen many peoples faith in Gods Sovereign hand on the Scriptures.

There are 66 books in the Bible there are 66 chapters in Isaiah.

Some have shown parallels of themes between each chapter of Isaiah and each book of the Scripture

One example

The New Testament is the 40th Book of the Bible, So we go to the 40th Chapter of Isaiah

we go to verse 3 and it says :

" The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

That was the 3rd verse of the 40th Chapter of Isaiah

Now we go to the 3rd verse of the 3rd chapter of the 40th Book of the Bible :

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Proudpapa,this completely and perfectly reflects what I said in my last post here. You have a pre conceived belief and because of that you see things to defend your belif deespite the complete illogic of the reasoning to get there. There are not 66 chapters in the book of Isaiah, a Catholic priest subdivided it that way. A Catholic priest that most certainly held to the apocrypha.

Even if there was, what does that prove?? Are you suggesting that God had the Catholic priest divide it that way just so Luther's bible (after much debating about what books he wanted in and out such as Jude and James) could be justified? Doesn't that seem a bit too convenient and very very illogical?

I don't want to sound mean but that is an absurd way of thinking. Christ is Logos, reasoning, logic. That just doesn't make sense.

This thread was not made to discuss the apocrypha but I would like to because it gets to the meat of what I'm trying to get at. We stand upon a foundation of other men and accept those teachings as true despite not knowing the source and motivations behind those teachings. If we do not see what we are standing on how can we be sure it's of Christ? And if it's not we are not in truth no matter how much we deceive ourselves and no matter how we feel we are with God. This is a big problem. And we wonder why revival hasn't come! Can a plant with a bad root be made well?? Where do we come from?

Every plant that the father has not planted will be plucked up by the roots. Are our roots HIM or were they planted by those who came before us?

Tyler- I know where you are coming from but it is an exercise in futility. There has always been disagreement on scripture interpretation, even among the earliest church fathers. There is no "gold standard" to go to.

You have simply trust that if you read scripture God will lead you to the truth. So it is indeed a faith issue.

Personally, I like Bible teachers who, when teaching, point out the various differing views and the pros and cons (based on scriptural support) of each view. Steve Gregg is very good at this. He will say which view he thinks is correct, but also admits he could be wrong so he never comes across as overly dogmatic.

Thankfully most disputing is not over "life or death" issues.

I am content with the answers I gave.

What is your answers to the questions that you pose ?

add : RE /// Even if there was, what does that prove?? Are you suggesting that God had the........///

I am suggesting that the Scriptures are inspired.
And that the nature that they testify of themselves is true.

TMK- I think its more futile to stay in ignorance and yet ask God to send us a revival.

Proudpapa - I don't know, all I know is within my church and the protestant movement at large there is an aptitude for blind acceptance of teachings from dubious sources (while other more credible ones are discarded). When people don't have reasoning they cite faith. Christ is logic, Christ is reason. I am not an anarchist, I believe in the authority of the prophet within the church (are there any left?) But everyone has their own agenda and no one seems willing to take the truth anywhere except where it's comfortable. But Christ is truth and he DAY will tell whether or not our foundation was on Christ or the teachings of men.

Who said anything about staying in ignorance?

Study the scriptures like a madman- just realize that someone else studying the same scriptures like a madman may reach some different conclusions. Nothing to panic about.

The important thing: what did the HS reveal to YOU?

RE : /// I don't know ///

You mock others for what they believe but you offer no alternative answers ??

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I'm not panicking over that. Im saying our way of viewing has been eskewed by those who came before us and we are unwilling to reexamine ourselves and what we believe in truth. That is why I brought up the apocrypha because it's a good example of this.

Guys thanks for responding and for your insight. I think I'm done here