Carbon
Admin
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
- Messages
- 5,385
- Reaction score
- 4,208
- Points
- 113
- Location
- New England
- Faith
- Reformed
- Country
- USA
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Conservative
Haha, well okay then.
Christ's Law
- Thread starter Odë:hgöd
- Start date
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 14:13a . .Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.
Within the context of the 14th of Romans, "passing judgment" pertains to criticizing
and/or scorning others when they refuse to accept and/or comply with your own
personal gray-area beliefs and practices.
_
Within the context of the 14th of Romans, "passing judgment" pertains to criticizing
and/or scorning others when they refuse to accept and/or comply with your own
personal gray-area beliefs and practices.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 14:13b . . Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in
your brother's way.
The Greek word translated "stumbling block" means a stub. For example: one year
I cut down a troublesome bush in my front yard and left a bit of a stump sticking up
out of the ground that later damaged my lawn mower when I accidentally ran over
it while cutting the grass; which had grown tall enough to conceal the stump. In
that respect, stumbling blocks are hazards not easily detected.
Within the context of the 14th of Romans, I would equate stumbling blocks to the
clever sophistry that silver-tongued Bible thumpers employ to persuade people to
do things contrary to their convictions and their conscience. Should you get pulled
into a debate with one of those thumpers you'll be frustrated because no matter
how skillfully defended your position, they will continue to oppose it with one
rebuttal after another; so the best track is: put on your best poker face and decline
to argue.
_
your brother's way.
The Greek word translated "stumbling block" means a stub. For example: one year
I cut down a troublesome bush in my front yard and left a bit of a stump sticking up
out of the ground that later damaged my lawn mower when I accidentally ran over
it while cutting the grass; which had grown tall enough to conceal the stump. In
that respect, stumbling blocks are hazards not easily detected.
Within the context of the 14th of Romans, I would equate stumbling blocks to the
clever sophistry that silver-tongued Bible thumpers employ to persuade people to
do things contrary to their convictions and their conscience. Should you get pulled
into a debate with one of those thumpers you'll be frustrated because no matter
how skillfully defended your position, they will continue to oppose it with one
rebuttal after another; so the best track is: put on your best poker face and decline
to argue.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 14:14-16 . . I know and am perfectly sure on the authority of The Lord Jesus
that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong,
then for that person it is wrong. And if another Christian is distressed by what you
eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don't let your eating ruin someone for
whom Christ died. Then you will not be condemned for doing something you know
is alright.
For example: We may believe that there is nothing wrong with eating freaky,
barbarian foods; but our Christian dinner companion might feel very strongly about
it. Well; sure, we can get by with eating freaky, barbarian foods; but Christ expects
his own to restrain themselves from eating distasteful stuff in front of our Christian
companions in thoughtful and sympathetic regard for their personal sensibilities,
i.e. as a courtesy.
I'm pretty sure this principle isn't restricted to diet, but can be applied to any
debatable issue with the potential to drive an unnecessary wedge between
ourselves and other Christians. For example; if you have friends over for an
evening of entertainment, and know they're uncomfortable with movies saturated
with crime, cruelty, obscenity, vulgarity, deviance, indecency, and violence; then
accommodate their feelings by selecting something you both can enjoy.
_
that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong,
then for that person it is wrong. And if another Christian is distressed by what you
eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don't let your eating ruin someone for
whom Christ died. Then you will not be condemned for doing something you know
is alright.
For example: We may believe that there is nothing wrong with eating freaky,
barbarian foods; but our Christian dinner companion might feel very strongly about
it. Well; sure, we can get by with eating freaky, barbarian foods; but Christ expects
his own to restrain themselves from eating distasteful stuff in front of our Christian
companions in thoughtful and sympathetic regard for their personal sensibilities,
i.e. as a courtesy.
I'm pretty sure this principle isn't restricted to diet, but can be applied to any
debatable issue with the potential to drive an unnecessary wedge between
ourselves and other Christians. For example; if you have friends over for an
evening of entertainment, and know they're uncomfortable with movies saturated
with crime, cruelty, obscenity, vulgarity, deviance, indecency, and violence; then
accommodate their feelings by selecting something you both can enjoy.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 14:19 . . Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to
mutual edification.
The Greek word translated "edification" is somewhat related to the building trades;
and in this instance pertains to structural improvements like a new wing, or a
bedroom, or another floor; and in many instances adds square footage to an
already-existing structure and/or improves its appearance, its value, and it's utility.
Edification then, is just the opposite of demolition, i.e. it builds up instead of tearing
down.
Webster's defines "peace" as a state in which there is no war or fighting; viz:
harmony and mutual concord. In other words: there are times when it's appropriate
to accommodate people's feelings about certain things for the sake of us all getting
along together.
NOTE: An important element in the practice of love is deference; which, in a
nutshell, implies regarding the wishes of others as trumping yours; viz: voluntary
subordination. (Eph 5:21)
_
mutual edification.
The Greek word translated "edification" is somewhat related to the building trades;
and in this instance pertains to structural improvements like a new wing, or a
bedroom, or another floor; and in many instances adds square footage to an
already-existing structure and/or improves its appearance, its value, and it's utility.
Edification then, is just the opposite of demolition, i.e. it builds up instead of tearing
down.
Webster's defines "peace" as a state in which there is no war or fighting; viz:
harmony and mutual concord. In other words: there are times when it's appropriate
to accommodate people's feelings about certain things for the sake of us all getting
along together.
NOTE: An important element in the practice of love is deference; which, in a
nutshell, implies regarding the wishes of others as trumping yours; viz: voluntary
subordination. (Eph 5:21)
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 14:20-21 . . Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is
clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to
stumble.
The critters that God lists in the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God
per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as unsuitable for human
consumption aren't intrinsically unsuitable. They're only designated unsuitable for
the Jews because that's how God wants it for a particular people. But outside the
covenant, for everybody else, whatever you'd like to eat can be eaten; all flora and
all fauna; and that dates all the way back to the Flood. (Gen 9:3)
But still; we wouldn't want to invite someone over for dinner serving foods that
they sincerely believe are wrong for them to eat; and thus lead them to
compromise their own personal convictions about what's right and what's wrong for
Christians. Prepare something else that you both can eat without feeling guilty.
That's the Christian way to go about it; it's also the thoughtful way to go about it.
_
clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to
stumble.
The critters that God lists in the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God
per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as unsuitable for human
consumption aren't intrinsically unsuitable. They're only designated unsuitable for
the Jews because that's how God wants it for a particular people. But outside the
covenant, for everybody else, whatever you'd like to eat can be eaten; all flora and
all fauna; and that dates all the way back to the Flood. (Gen 9:3)
But still; we wouldn't want to invite someone over for dinner serving foods that
they sincerely believe are wrong for them to eat; and thus lead them to
compromise their own personal convictions about what's right and what's wrong for
Christians. Prepare something else that you both can eat without feeling guilty.
That's the Christian way to go about it; it's also the thoughtful way to go about it.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 14:22a . . So whatever you personally believe in debatable areas keep
between yourself and God.
The old adage "Let sleeping dogs lie." is certainly apropos in gray-area beliefs and
practices. For example; some folks are comfortable with having a picture of Jesus in
their homes while others think it's wrong. I think it best to consider that issue a
sort of DMZ wherein neither side initiates conflict.
_
between yourself and God.
The old adage "Let sleeping dogs lie." is certainly apropos in gray-area beliefs and
practices. For example; some folks are comfortable with having a picture of Jesus in
their homes while others think it's wrong. I think it best to consider that issue a
sort of DMZ wherein neither side initiates conflict.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 14:22b . . Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he
approves.
The Greek word translated "blessed" means fortunate and/or well off. The opposite
of that would be like deprived and/or missing out on something worth having.
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not
from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." (Rom 14:23)
Where there's doubt; it's possible to be wrong even when you're right because it's a
sin to forge ahead when one's conscience is not sure it's okay to do so.
I once knew a Christian who felt guilty just setting foot inside a Block Buster video
store. Was he silly for feeling that way? Not in his mind; and it's your own personal
moral compass that counts in gray areas. Some Christians can't permit themselves
to dine in a restaurant that serves alcohol; while others see nothing wrong with it.
If those two kinds of Christians should perchance dine out together, it's the more
sensitive conscience that determines where to eat.
In other words; it makes good spiritual sense to avoid insisting upon your freedoms
and rights sometimes in order to prevent dragging your fellow Christians into
something that makes them feel guilty and/or uncomfortable.
"We may know that certain things make no difference, but we cannot just go ahead
and do them to please ourselves. We must be considerate of the doubts and fears
of those who believe certain things are wrong." (Rom 15:1-2)
Webster's defines "considerate" as thoughtful of the rights and feelings of others,
i.e. deferent, gallant, chivalrous, sensitive, yielding, and diplomatic.
_
approves.
The Greek word translated "blessed" means fortunate and/or well off. The opposite
of that would be like deprived and/or missing out on something worth having.
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not
from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." (Rom 14:23)
Where there's doubt; it's possible to be wrong even when you're right because it's a
sin to forge ahead when one's conscience is not sure it's okay to do so.
I once knew a Christian who felt guilty just setting foot inside a Block Buster video
store. Was he silly for feeling that way? Not in his mind; and it's your own personal
moral compass that counts in gray areas. Some Christians can't permit themselves
to dine in a restaurant that serves alcohol; while others see nothing wrong with it.
If those two kinds of Christians should perchance dine out together, it's the more
sensitive conscience that determines where to eat.
In other words; it makes good spiritual sense to avoid insisting upon your freedoms
and rights sometimes in order to prevent dragging your fellow Christians into
something that makes them feel guilty and/or uncomfortable.
"We may know that certain things make no difference, but we cannot just go ahead
and do them to please ourselves. We must be considerate of the doubts and fears
of those who believe certain things are wrong." (Rom 15:1-2)
Webster's defines "considerate" as thoughtful of the rights and feelings of others,
i.e. deferent, gallant, chivalrous, sensitive, yielding, and diplomatic.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 15:7 . . Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to
bring praise to God.
Christians begin as sinners alienated from God.
"When we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His
son" (Rom 5:10)
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son as an
atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1John 4:10)
The thing is: God takes sinners under His wing even when they are as stubborn and
rebellious as conceited adolescents. So then; I think we may take it that
disagreement over matters of conscience-- i.e. gray issues --is never a valid reason
to disown one's fellow believer. This calls for benevolence, i.e. the graces of tact,
diplomacy, courtesy, and tolerance.
NOTE: Bringing praise to God speaks of appropriate conduct as opposed to conduct
unbecoming, i.e. avoiding embarrassment to God as bad-boy Christians instead of
Christians that He can be proud of.
_
bring praise to God.
Christians begin as sinners alienated from God.
"When we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His
son" (Rom 5:10)
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son as an
atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1John 4:10)
The thing is: God takes sinners under His wing even when they are as stubborn and
rebellious as conceited adolescents. So then; I think we may take it that
disagreement over matters of conscience-- i.e. gray issues --is never a valid reason
to disown one's fellow believer. This calls for benevolence, i.e. the graces of tact,
diplomacy, courtesy, and tolerance.
NOTE: Bringing praise to God speaks of appropriate conduct as opposed to conduct
unbecoming, i.e. avoiding embarrassment to God as bad-boy Christians instead of
Christians that He can be proud of.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 15:27 . . For if the Gentiles have shared in the Israelite's spiritual blessings,
they owe it to the Israelites to share with them their material blessings.
Within the context of Rom 15:25-27, the Israelites to whom Paul refers are not
those who believe and practice Judaism; but those who believe Jesus (a.k.a.
Y'shua) is the Messiah.
It is unbecoming for Christians to support religions that undermine Christ;
especially when it's taken into consideration that 1Cor 16:22 requires Christ's
followers to regard the followers of religions opposed to his as cursed.
NOTE: The Jews' original beliefs and practices were primarily biblical. By the time of
Jesus' day, their religion had become rabbinical, i.e. defined by the Talmud; which
incorporates the Bible but isn't strictly limited to it.
_
they owe it to the Israelites to share with them their material blessings.
Within the context of Rom 15:25-27, the Israelites to whom Paul refers are not
those who believe and practice Judaism; but those who believe Jesus (a.k.a.
Y'shua) is the Messiah.
It is unbecoming for Christians to support religions that undermine Christ;
especially when it's taken into consideration that 1Cor 16:22 requires Christ's
followers to regard the followers of religions opposed to his as cursed.
NOTE: The Jews' original beliefs and practices were primarily biblical. By the time of
Jesus' day, their religion had become rabbinical, i.e. defined by the Talmud; which
incorporates the Bible but isn't strictly limited to it.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● Rom 16:17-18 . . I urge you, brothers, beware of those who cause divisions and
put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep
away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own
appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.
Naïve folk can be characterized as credulous, i.e. easily convinced by slight or
uncertain evidence, viz: non-critical thinkers.
"smooth talk" is the practice of sophistry; defined as a reason or an argument that
sounds correct but at its core is actually false; viz: subtly deceptive reasoning or
argumentation. Sophistry is typically rational, reasonable, and sensible; but the
thing to keep in mind is that faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only
what makes sense to it.
According to Eph 4:11-14 the very reason that Christ endows some of his followers
to speak for him is so that the rest of his followers may have access to true
premises upon which to build their faith and thus achieve the unity for which he
prayed at John 17:20-21.
Rom 16:17-18 contains somewhat universal instructions because, with a
little adjustment here and there, they can be incorporated as counseling for just
about every ideology known to man, e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Baha'i,
Protestant, Catholic, Democracy, Communism, Socialism, etc. It's kind of
humorous, in an ironic sort of way, that everybody's ideology warns its adherents
about the dangers of everybody else's ideology.
_
put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep
away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own
appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.
Naïve folk can be characterized as credulous, i.e. easily convinced by slight or
uncertain evidence, viz: non-critical thinkers.
"smooth talk" is the practice of sophistry; defined as a reason or an argument that
sounds correct but at its core is actually false; viz: subtly deceptive reasoning or
argumentation. Sophistry is typically rational, reasonable, and sensible; but the
thing to keep in mind is that faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only
what makes sense to it.
According to Eph 4:11-14 the very reason that Christ endows some of his followers
to speak for him is so that the rest of his followers may have access to true
premises upon which to build their faith and thus achieve the unity for which he
prayed at John 17:20-21.
Rom 16:17-18 contains somewhat universal instructions because, with a
little adjustment here and there, they can be incorporated as counseling for just
about every ideology known to man, e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Baha'i,
Protestant, Catholic, Democracy, Communism, Socialism, etc. It's kind of
humorous, in an ironic sort of way, that everybody's ideology warns its adherents
about the dangers of everybody else's ideology.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● 1Cor 1:10 . . I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among
you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Official belief systems-- e.g. the Nicene Creed and/or proprietary church covenants
and statements of faith --are very effective for achieving the unity required by 1Cor
1:10; and should always be imposed upon new people applying for membership in
a local congregation. A church composed of a variety of beliefs and practices isn't a
unified church: it's a forum.
NOTE: I would have to say that after belief in God and His son, the next thing that
church members need to believe in is each other; and if they can't believe in each
other, then I really think they ought to disband. I'm not kidding around about this;
without trust and loyalty a church is just as dysfunctional as any other maladjusted
family.
_
that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among
you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Official belief systems-- e.g. the Nicene Creed and/or proprietary church covenants
and statements of faith --are very effective for achieving the unity required by 1Cor
1:10; and should always be imposed upon new people applying for membership in
a local congregation. A church composed of a variety of beliefs and practices isn't a
unified church: it's a forum.
NOTE: I would have to say that after belief in God and His son, the next thing that
church members need to believe in is each other; and if they can't believe in each
other, then I really think they ought to disband. I'm not kidding around about this;
without trust and loyalty a church is just as dysfunctional as any other maladjusted
family.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● 1Cor 1:26 . . Brethren, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of
you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of
noble birth.
In other words; those among the elite who've been called, weren't called because
they're special. They were called because they're sinners no different than the rest
of us. It's that simple; and they should never forget it.
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the
weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this
world and the despised things-- and the things that are not-to nullify the things
that are, so that no one may boast before him." (1Cor 1:27-30)
"God alone made it possible for you to be in Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made
Christ to be wisdom itself; he is the one who made us acceptable to God. He made
us pure and holy, and he gave himself to purchase our freedom." (1Cor 1:30-31)
NOTE: Were he able to exercise a free hand, no doubt the Devil would make it
impossible for anybody to be in Christ. However; that's not to be because God's
free will trumps the Devil's free will.
_
you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of
noble birth.
In other words; those among the elite who've been called, weren't called because
they're special. They were called because they're sinners no different than the rest
of us. It's that simple; and they should never forget it.
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the
weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this
world and the despised things-- and the things that are not-to nullify the things
that are, so that no one may boast before him." (1Cor 1:27-30)
"God alone made it possible for you to be in Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made
Christ to be wisdom itself; he is the one who made us acceptable to God. He made
us pure and holy, and he gave himself to purchase our freedom." (1Cor 1:30-31)
NOTE: Were he able to exercise a free hand, no doubt the Devil would make it
impossible for anybody to be in Christ. However; that's not to be because God's
free will trumps the Devil's free will.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 1Cor 3:9-11 . .We are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I
laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how
he builds upon it. (For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is
laid, which is Christ Jesus.)
Most Christian endeavors at least begin with Christ at their core. That's a good
start. However, not all build something upon him that's eternally useful to either
him or his Father, e.g. political activism, civil disobedience, faith healing, and
tongues.
_
● 1Cor 3:9-11 . .We are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I
laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how
he builds upon it. (For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is
laid, which is Christ Jesus.)
Most Christian endeavors at least begin with Christ at their core. That's a good
start. However, not all build something upon him that's eternally useful to either
him or his Father, e.g. political activism, civil disobedience, faith healing, and
tongues.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 1Cor 3:18 . . If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he
should become a fool so that he may become wise.
In our age, "wise" would pertain to people high up in finance, education, science,
art, computing, crafts, music, philosophy, politics, etc. Many of those kinds of
people are brilliant and utterly self-reliant.
Well; I can say from personal experience that above-average folks tend to make
very poor Sunday school students because their intelligence gets in the way. If only
they would leave their IQ at the door, even they themselves would be the better for
it because when it comes to spiritual discernment; many of those egg heads are
about as bright as an elementary school kid just starting out in kindergartner in
need of beginning right from square-one and learning some basics; which for the
wise, is very demeaning to say the least.
But nobody arrives from the womb knowing everything; thus the instructions from
Jas 1:21 which say:
"Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."
_
● 1Cor 3:18 . . If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he
should become a fool so that he may become wise.
In our age, "wise" would pertain to people high up in finance, education, science,
art, computing, crafts, music, philosophy, politics, etc. Many of those kinds of
people are brilliant and utterly self-reliant.
Well; I can say from personal experience that above-average folks tend to make
very poor Sunday school students because their intelligence gets in the way. If only
they would leave their IQ at the door, even they themselves would be the better for
it because when it comes to spiritual discernment; many of those egg heads are
about as bright as an elementary school kid just starting out in kindergartner in
need of beginning right from square-one and learning some basics; which for the
wise, is very demeaning to say the least.
But nobody arrives from the womb knowing everything; thus the instructions from
Jas 1:21 which say:
"Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 1Cor 3:19-21a . . For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the
scriptures say; "God catches those who think they are wise in their own
cleverness." And again; "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are
worthless." So don't take pride in following a particular leader.
Among budding musicians "particular leaders" are called influences; which is a
pretty good choice of words because the movers and shakers in this world have a
lot to do with shaping people's opinions. But unfortunately many of those opinions
are thoroughly inappropriate for Christ's followers; especially the ones that
motivate us to be grasping; roughly defined as desiring material possessions
urgently and excessively and often to the point of ruthlessness.
Well; there's no need to be grasping-- instead be patient --because one day we'll
be privileged beyond imagination.
"Everything belongs to you: Paul and Apollos and Peter; the whole world and life
and death; the present and the future. Everything belongs to you, and you belong
to Christ, and Christ belongs to God." (1 Cor 3:21b-23)
_
● 1Cor 3:19-21a . . For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the
scriptures say; "God catches those who think they are wise in their own
cleverness." And again; "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are
worthless." So don't take pride in following a particular leader.
Among budding musicians "particular leaders" are called influences; which is a
pretty good choice of words because the movers and shakers in this world have a
lot to do with shaping people's opinions. But unfortunately many of those opinions
are thoroughly inappropriate for Christ's followers; especially the ones that
motivate us to be grasping; roughly defined as desiring material possessions
urgently and excessively and often to the point of ruthlessness.
Well; there's no need to be grasping-- instead be patient --because one day we'll
be privileged beyond imagination.
"Everything belongs to you: Paul and Apollos and Peter; the whole world and life
and death; the present and the future. Everything belongs to you, and you belong
to Christ, and Christ belongs to God." (1 Cor 3:21b-23)
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 1Cor 4:1 . . So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ, and as those
entrusted with the mysteries of God.
Big names like Mother Teresa, Charles Spurgeon, and Billy Graham are practically
sacred cows-- but Christian celebrities like those are only human rather than
divine; and be grateful you're not one of them because their responsibility is
proportional.
"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know
that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (Jas 3:1, cf. 1Cor 3:9-15)
_
● 1Cor 4:1 . . So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ, and as those
entrusted with the mysteries of God.
Big names like Mother Teresa, Charles Spurgeon, and Billy Graham are practically
sacred cows-- but Christian celebrities like those are only human rather than
divine; and be grateful you're not one of them because their responsibility is
proportional.
"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know
that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (Jas 3:1, cf. 1Cor 3:9-15)
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 1Cor 4:5 . . Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till The Lord comes. He
will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and expose the motives of men's
hearts.
Human nature has a propensity to shower accolades on religious celebrities without
having all the facts.
For example: we now know from Mother Teresa's private letters-- made public by
Father Brian Kolodiejchuk's book "Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light" --that Ms.
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a nun with so little personal belief in God as to be an
agnostic; and yet for decades everyone the world over thought she was the cat's
meow and the bee's knees: a veritable poster child of piety in thought, word, and
deed. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public image bore no
resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being.
The Spirit's corroboration that comes to Christ's followers via Rom 8:16 never
happened for Teresa. She complained in private letters to superiors that she felt not
the slightest glimmer of the Lord's presence during virtually her entire five decades
in India. As a result, the remarkable nun came to the end of her life wondering if
there really is a God out there; and worried that if perchance there is a God, He
didn't want her in India to begin with; maybe even didn't particularly like her, and
might actually be quite intent upon condemning her.
* To be honest: I just don't know how the Roman Church could proceed with fast
tracking Mother Teresa to sainthood while fully aware of her deplorable spiritual
condition; unless she was just too widely admired, and too big a global figure, not
to.
_
● 1Cor 4:5 . . Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till The Lord comes. He
will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and expose the motives of men's
hearts.
Human nature has a propensity to shower accolades on religious celebrities without
having all the facts.
For example: we now know from Mother Teresa's private letters-- made public by
Father Brian Kolodiejchuk's book "Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light" --that Ms.
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a nun with so little personal belief in God as to be an
agnostic; and yet for decades everyone the world over thought she was the cat's
meow and the bee's knees: a veritable poster child of piety in thought, word, and
deed. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public image bore no
resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being.
The Spirit's corroboration that comes to Christ's followers via Rom 8:16 never
happened for Teresa. She complained in private letters to superiors that she felt not
the slightest glimmer of the Lord's presence during virtually her entire five decades
in India. As a result, the remarkable nun came to the end of her life wondering if
there really is a God out there; and worried that if perchance there is a God, He
didn't want her in India to begin with; maybe even didn't particularly like her, and
might actually be quite intent upon condemning her.
* To be honest: I just don't know how the Roman Church could proceed with fast
tracking Mother Teresa to sainthood while fully aware of her deplorable spiritual
condition; unless she was just too widely admired, and too big a global figure, not
to.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
● 1Cor 5:1-5 . . It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and
immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone
has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned
instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your
midst.
. . . For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already
judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of
our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of
our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of
his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of The Lord Jesus.
Gentiles of course do sleep with their stepmothers on occasion; but the world's
practice of that kind of behavior is more an aberration than a custom.
Well, the Corinthians were treating that man's behavior as if it were a norm, i.e.
they apparently felt that the man's conduct was trivial, undeserving of either
attention or criticism. They must have wondered why Paul was reacting so badly
rather than just "get over it". After all; it's none of his business what goes on
behind closed doors. Had he not heard of the right to privacy? And besides, didn't
the Lord say: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Delivering someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh just simply means to
cull them from the herd, so to speak. In other words: exclude them from
congregational activities; e.g. worship, Sunday school, and prayer meetings. This is
not as radical as totally breaking off contact with someone; it's purpose is church
discipline rather than the cruel social disconnection practiced by Scientology and
the Jehovah's Witnesses.
_
immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone
has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned
instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your
midst.
. . . For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already
judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of
our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of
our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of
his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of The Lord Jesus.
Gentiles of course do sleep with their stepmothers on occasion; but the world's
practice of that kind of behavior is more an aberration than a custom.
Well, the Corinthians were treating that man's behavior as if it were a norm, i.e.
they apparently felt that the man's conduct was trivial, undeserving of either
attention or criticism. They must have wondered why Paul was reacting so badly
rather than just "get over it". After all; it's none of his business what goes on
behind closed doors. Had he not heard of the right to privacy? And besides, didn't
the Lord say: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Delivering someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh just simply means to
cull them from the herd, so to speak. In other words: exclude them from
congregational activities; e.g. worship, Sunday school, and prayer meetings. This is
not as radical as totally breaking off contact with someone; it's purpose is church
discipline rather than the cruel social disconnection practiced by Scientology and
the Jehovah's Witnesses.
_
Odë:hgöd
Well Known Member
.
● 1Cor 5:6b . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of
dough?
The first few chapters of the book of Revelation list several of Jesus' complaints
about the spiritual condition of specific churches. It's unlikely that every member of
those churches deserved criticism, but Jesus slammed the churches as corporate
bodies rather than individuals. So then if, and/or when, those churches failed to
correct their shortcomings; then the whole church-- the good and the bad --was
taken to task.
Therefore:
"Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact
unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore
celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
. . . I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all
mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or
with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.
. . . But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he
should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do
with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But
those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among
yourselves." (1Cor 5:7-13)
That's a good argument against church expansion. The more a congregation swells,
the more difficult it is for the staff to gauge their people's spiritual condition.
Churches can't be expected to police every soul that comes thru their doors, but
they should be expected to keep an eye on those they accept, and those they keep,
on their membership roles because the substandard members have as much
influence upon Jesus' evaluation of their operation as the pious members.
NOTE: The Greek word translated "brothers" and "brother" that Paul commonly
used when addressing Christians, technically refers to one's male kin. However, in
the beginning Adam embodied both genders due to the woman's construction with
material taken from his body. So we can safely assume that when Paul addressed
Christians as brothers, and/or brother, he was sometimes communicating with both
men and women; unless explicitly indicated otherwise.
_
● 1Cor 5:6b . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of
dough?
The first few chapters of the book of Revelation list several of Jesus' complaints
about the spiritual condition of specific churches. It's unlikely that every member of
those churches deserved criticism, but Jesus slammed the churches as corporate
bodies rather than individuals. So then if, and/or when, those churches failed to
correct their shortcomings; then the whole church-- the good and the bad --was
taken to task.
Therefore:
"Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact
unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore
celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
. . . I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all
mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or
with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.
. . . But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he
should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do
with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But
those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among
yourselves." (1Cor 5:7-13)
That's a good argument against church expansion. The more a congregation swells,
the more difficult it is for the staff to gauge their people's spiritual condition.
Churches can't be expected to police every soul that comes thru their doors, but
they should be expected to keep an eye on those they accept, and those they keep,
on their membership roles because the substandard members have as much
influence upon Jesus' evaluation of their operation as the pious members.
NOTE: The Greek word translated "brothers" and "brother" that Paul commonly
used when addressing Christians, technically refers to one's male kin. However, in
the beginning Adam embodied both genders due to the woman's construction with
material taken from his body. So we can safely assume that when Paul addressed
Christians as brothers, and/or brother, he was sometimes communicating with both
men and women; unless explicitly indicated otherwise.
_
Last edited:
