Well, at first it sounded like you were saying that the way to know a false teacher was by his murderous behavior, ie fruits. It now seems like you have reconsidered looking too closely at behavior, good idea on your part, and are simply defaulting to the old we're right and you're wrong. And your proof that you are right, "the Church Fathers". This must explain why RCs so often drop names of such fathers when trying to prove a doctrine that doesn't exist in the bible.
I still maintain that the bible warns about false teachers. When I hear teaching that is not in the bible and that is often the very opposite of what the bible say that is pretty simple proof that a teacher or even a whole denomination is false. The bible places unlimited confidence in itself but not in man. The bible's definition of the Church has never been the RCC so any verses about the Church can only be about believers, not a particular denomination.
Frankly I think the fragmenting of the church by deeming individuals to be infailable started in the RC if you must know. Then the protestants magnified this approach by making everyone Pope. Both inspired by the same spirit.
I still maintain that the bible warns about false teachers. When I hear teaching that is not in the bible and that is often the very opposite of what the bible say that is pretty simple proof that a teacher or even a whole denomination is false. The bible places unlimited confidence in itself but not in man. The bible's definition of the Church has never been the RCC so any verses about the Church can only be about believers, not a particular denomination.
= = =
Well put.
You responded to a poster who is claiming that the work of the HS is the work of the devil, wow, I don't even want to be in the vicinity