Paula

The “law” referenced by Paul is not in the Bible but in Jewish oral law. Paul, as he does throughout the letter, is dealing with questions or problems put to him by the Corinthians, and he sometimes quotes them before answering. The Greek word “he” begins the verse following and is translated as “Or” in many translations. But the force of this “or” is more along the lines of “What???” or “Get outta town!”

So Paul is strongly objecting to someone’s attempt to impose Jewish legalism on the people, and even mocks them by saying “So you think the law came from you, do you? Did you get it first? Who do you think you are?”

And this is the same Paul who spent a great deal of time fighting against any inch of return to the Mosaic law, the same Paul who told women how to deal with social hair-covering issues while preaching to the congregation or giving prophecy from God, the same Paul who said “I resolved to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ, and him crucified”, the same Paul who persuaded the Jerusalem council to lay no burden on the Gentile believers except to two very basic and widespread prohibitions out of consideration, not legalistic obligation. He would have to be either very forgetful of everything else he wrote, or very self-contradictory, in order to make up a new list of “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” rules for the assemblies.

So it’s not in the Bible, and Paul is very much against it. So there.

Did I give the impression that HR teachers were monolithic?

Anyway, the important thing is that we never let any practice blur salvation by faith alone, or our freedom in Christ. The danger I see in practices that may be technically harmless is that people have a hard time keeping them that way. They tend over time to make the practice more than it should be.

All the more reason to cling to good interlinears and not depend upon Strong’s (which is largely circular with the KJV) alone but make use of other dictionaries such as Liddell-Scott.

I like the scripture4all interlinear because it puts the grammatical parsing with each word. Their concordat approach has obvious advantages, but also seems to make them come up with some pretty obscure English equivalents; I’ve had to go to the dictionary many times, thinking “Aw, come on, that’s not a real word!”, only to find it there (albeit sometimes only used in archaic form).

And I agree, Cindy, that those who are revered as scholars have dropped the ball in a big way. But it’s just like the scientific community; you develop a reputation, then fight like a banshee to protect it, even if your theories are proved wrong by the research of others. Every human institution become political.

And that’s why Jesus didn’t set one up. He spoke only of relationships and attitudes, of humility and service. The very term “servant leader” is an oxymoron, an example of Orwellian doublespeak. But without heavy organization there is no one to boss, no one to corrupt, no way to politicize the Body.

Legalism is the fruit of pride and control. And it’s everywhere, not just in the “gender wars”. The Hebrew Roots movement is trying to put us back under law, many denominations insist that every believer be under a Pastor’s (i.e., CEO’s) “covering”, tithing is still pushed, many want to dictate “proper” worship, or devise dress codes, on and on and on. And those who control the scriptures have the high ground.

I do believe they’ll start burning Bibles and Christians again soon. One scapegoat after another will be labeled The Enemy.

Even if the rhetoric and name-calling were to stop today, we still have an issue to resolve. Permanent hierarchy (understood as between 2 adult believers) based upon the flesh cannot coexist with full equality and gift-based service. How would such an Assembly work? How could it function? Even if local assemblies separated on that basis, how could the groups work together, such as training for leaders, when some of the leaders would never recognize others as such?

The “solution” used to be “separate but equal”, and we all know how that worked out.

Unlike the Calvinism/Arminian debate, which has no practical difference concerning the gospel or evangelism or service, the gender war silences half of all believers and imputes sin to women who chafe against being treated like perpetual children or slaves.

The only path I can see is for each group to go their separate ways, and only ask that they agree on the essentials of the gospel. The Body was never meant to be a business or government anyway, such that it needs complex organization. Small groups in the first century did more evangelization than has ever happened since, without walls or programs or bosses.

The whole debate on faith and works would seriously distract this thread, so if you want I can try to look up my docs on that topic and post some links.

Re. “sin that leads to death”, remember that Paul told the Corinthians that some of them had died prematurely due to improper attitudes toward the Lord’s supper. He wasn’t calling them lost, only that their physical lives were cut short because of their sin.

Re. common sense, I agree. But it depends upon proper spiritual upbringing. New believers are left to themselves for the most part, and they aren’t fed proper spiritual meat. They are worldly because they don’t know any better. While a few are self-taught and get into the Word on their own, most need instruction. Think of all the assemblies Paul and Peter wrote to; they all needed instruction. That means it must be necessary, and these were all believers. Of course there were false believers among them as well, but Paul never had kind words for them. There was no talk of “handing them over” but of them being “dogs and pigs” (actually that was Peter I think), or as John said, “they were never part of us”.

I too seriously doubt the salvation of many “Christian” leaders today. But I will not go to the point of calling them lost unless they deny Jesus. The current push for hierarchy in the Trinity is a denial of the full divinity of Jesus, and thus anyone who thinks Jesus is less than fully God has “another Jesus”.

Lin, What I base this on is Heb. 12:7-8:

Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate children at all.

Would God discipline children who are not his? I don’t believe he would. So if God disciplines someone, they must belong to him. Therefore, since Hym and Alex were handed over to Satan for the purpose of discipline (being taught a lesson), then they must have been believers.

I also base it on the very carnal Christians in Corinth. Paul strongly reprimanded them for their immaturity, which was characterized by wallowing in sin, factions, and being easily led astray. The Galatians had turned back to legalism and ritual.

So there can be carnal Christians; the question is, where does carnal leave off and lost begin? We simply can’t always know. But anyone who seems to have a firm conviction that Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose again, and trusts Him completely for salvation, yet “has no works” (Rom. 4:5), will have to be considered saved. It’s the confession of faith that we have to go on.

If all believers are to have a minimum degree of works, where is the line drawn? What do the NT writers tell us?

Now for Christian leaders, that’s a different ballgame. James says “we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Paul spelled out the qualifications for leaders, and surely they above all should exhibit the fruit of the spirit. They are to be examples and role models, tested and approved. 1 Tim. 5:19-21 says,

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

So I would say that sinning leaders should be divested of any positions they may hold and put under the leadership of teachers who walk in the Spirit and “rightly divide the Word”.

Personally, I believe scripture teaches against “eternal insecurity”. From there I have to conclude that anyone who appeared to have been a believer and then wallows in sin openly and willingly without repentance was never saved in the first place. Knowing what a shallow, feel-good “gospel” has been preached for many decades now, if not centuries, I have no doubt that many who play the church game have never actually accepted Jesus according to scripture.

But here’s the bottom line: Regardless of our theories, we must always expect believers to display growth, to increase in holiness. Those who don’t must be lovingly corrected, and those who refuse correction must be expelled from fellowship. Their eternal fate is known only to them and God, but we can only judge by confession and expel on the basis of rebellion. We must not look up to people who show their immaturity by wallowing in sin, or lacking love, or playing little gods over others. The issue is leadership and fellowship. We are not God and cannot go beyond what we can see and hear. Fellowship is not to be accepted from those who walk in sin, and leaders are to be held to a much stricter standard than followers.

I too cannot fathom walking in sin while claiming Christ. But I am not qualified to pronounce judgment on someone who claims the true gospel as a personal conviction. Spiritual infants are alive but cannot be expected to show maturity. If they never grow, something is terribly wrong, and it is the responsibility of the mature to see to it that they are properly guided. The churches have failed miserably in this regard. Yet if anyone refuses instruction and loves their sin, they must be disfellowshipped.

Regarding the word transliterated “blaspheme”, the meaning is to speak false testimony, to slander. The two Paul was writing about were lying about others.

Anyway, that’s all just how I see it.

1 Timothy 1:19-20 
holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

The interlinear tells me that it is The Faith that these men were ruining, not individual people’s faith. They were turning people away. And I don’t believe Paul would turn unbelievers over to be taught a lesson. So these are believers who are turning others away from The Faith.

I believe your stalkers are in this category. They are turning the lost away and injuring the faith of the weak; they give Christianity a bad name. They need to be taught a lesson!

Or look at the man Paul wrote about in 1 Cor., who was living with his step-mother. He was thrown out and handed over to Satan. Later, in 2 Cor., Paul instructed the people to reinstate the man because he had repented. Surely this man was a believer.

I have been thinking about our responsibilities as a watchman when no one wants to listen to our warning. How far are we to push someone who refuses to listen? I have just been through that and so it is heavy on my mind right now. I think I will do a post on it to address my concerns.

I think you broadcast your message, try to reach out, and then reluctantly “hand them over to Satan”. We are not to pursue the rebellious forever.

I’ve been in a lot of boards where people just are completely unwilling to concede that others can have a different view on non-essentials. They create blogs just to bash “fundies” who stupidly cling to the Bible as if it were the very words of God (!?!). They are very condescending and think whoever doesn’t agree is hostile and ignorant, and with mock concern say they’ll pray for our eyes to be opened. Eventually you just have to hand them over and walk away.

The longest I ever stayed in a hostile place was three years, but I didn’t go until I felt released by God. I literally felt as though I were living in a mosquito-infested swamp all that time. Much New Age, paganism, atheism, and even Nazis! One pathetic atheist even started a blog just to mock me. Even a year after I had been out of that board, I stumbled upon his blog and saw that the poor soul was still posting rage against something I had written 18 months before!

But when God tells you to go, it’s not wise to look back. The pull can be strong, because we genuinely want to see people right with God. We never want to give up. But for the sake of those “handed over”, we must leave them.

Absolutely right, Greg. The “church”, the world… it’s all about power, money, and prestige. Cynical but true. Being “positive” in such a time is sheer denial.

Ooo, boy!

Nothing like a little “in your face” to get someone’s attention. But I’m wondering if they’ll just ignore you.

What about the grave moral concern we should all have for those who crave power and refuse to humble themselves, who slander fellow believers, who beat their fellow servants? What about organizations like CBMW who teach male entitlement, then like Adam covering his nakedness, write book after book to explain away the implications of that teaching?

Pride in the flesh is not a Christian virtue! We should issue our own proclamations of “grave moral concern” for the sorry state of Christendumb. The “churches” are asleep, dead, bland, and apostate. Not because of women, but because of sin: pride in the flesh, failure to discern and test the spirits (i.e., failure to guard!), compromise with other religions, desire to dominate.

CBMW should be ashamed of themselves.

1. Because (a) she was “beguiled”, which carries the connotation of more than simply being misled but also very deeply deceived, and (b) because when she was confronted directly by God (which proves she was personally responsible for her own actions and not under Adam in any way) she freely admitted (1) her guilt, (2) the serpent as the cause, and (3) did not blame anyone else. Later, when she began having children, she showed faith in God’s promise of the Savior through her seed. Also note that it was Eve, not Adam, who first named their children.

2. She wanted Adam. Not his alleged power, position, golf clubs or anything else, just him. Never in scripture is she said to have wanted anything that allegedly belonged to Adam; never is she said to have been guilty of wanting power. In fact, it is Adam who God expressly stated would crave that power; it is Adam who was the one with the desire to rule.

3. It’s pure pride, “might makes right”, “I got here first” mentality.

4. Adam had no such rule over Eve or anyone else. He was clearly defiant and wanted to be in charge, even over God. He was the treasonous guard, the spineless protector, the blame-passing coward. Does the Bible ever say much good about Adam? Does it ever say anything about Eve being defiant?

Hey, I took the quiz first… does that mean I get the highest grade, just for that reason?

I say, let the Pharisees have their own religion and club. Who needs them? They would literally have to confiscate our computers to silence us, and then we’d just go underground. Then they’d have to hunt and kill, like the popes of old, like the ancient Roman emperors. And this, they say with a straight face, is orthodox Christianity.

Oops… that’s Malachi chapter 3.

Yep. From now on, any time a self-important imam of what used to be Christianity issues another ruling over their perceived subjects, I’m calling it what it is: a fatwa.

The situation in Christendumb is so pathetic now. There is no love, no grace, no genuine concern about either the lost or the alleged backslidden. They shoot their wounded and make their fellow servants their enemies. They hide their own grievous sins under cloaks of deceit and conceit. They put out “hits” on anyone who crosses them and treat them worse than the old Soviet Union treated political dissidents.

This is the “Christianity” the world is seeing. No wonder they say it’s like the Taliban; it’s true! And it’s just like Malachi said:

15 But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly evildoers prosper, and even when they put God to the test, they get away with it.’ ” 16 Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name. 17 “On the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.

We don’t get justice now, or see God punish the hired hands, but that Day is fast approaching.

90% sure is better than zero!

Now expect some condemnatory fatwas from high-profile members of the SBC or elsewhere

How appropriate! The anti-spam word is “help” and I’ve tried to post something twice and it just won’t take it.

Cheryl, I emailed my “despised and rejected” post to you.

It seems that was/became is a matter of grammar and context. Here is an argument against “became” in Gen. 1:2:

5 tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3). Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [?] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form). (This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.) Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.

In Gen. 3:1 we see was/became again: “And the serpent was/became crafty from all of animal…” Same exact form as was/became in 3:22.

And another thing: the word for “one” in “was one of us” is echad, which denotes one group, e.g. “one nation”. (more detail at my blog)

Lin,

Some say that the “us” is called “honorific plural” or something to that effect. It was common in ancient times to use the plural when referring to deities.

But if that were the case for the Bible, then we’d expect God to *always* use the plural when using a pronoun to refer to himself. Yet that isn’t the case. Granted it’s used more than we know about in English, since it isn’t typically translated as plural, but the exceptions argue against this honorific plural.

Some then theorize that “us” means the angels, but I think that’s pretty easy to dismiss.

The other possibility, to which I agree, is that “us” is the Trinity. The word there for God is “Elohim”, which is the plural of “Eloha”, so it literally reads “And he says the Lord Gods,  ‘Look, the human was as one from us…’ ”

The word “was” is the same root as that used in Gen. 1:2– “And the earth she was chaos and empty…” (In the young/old earth debate, old earthers prefer “the earth became chaos…”) So there is considerable debate between “was” and “became” on more than one topic.

As Spock would say, “Fascinating!”

The typical “rebuttal” is, “There’s a reason everybody translates it as “has become” (the way they do for everything else egals point out is mistranslated). It’s just that the “reason” isn’t a good one!

Looking at the interlinear, we notice that the literal English below each word is mostly rendered in the present tense, but when we come to “eie” it’s past. Should be obvious, even with some tense ambiguity in Hebrew, that God is not speaking of Adam’s “like us” as something he just achieved.

Or as Data would say, “Curious!”

Also note that God says all this about “the human”, not “they”. It would appear that only one of them had ceased being “like us”. Hmmm…

First, a look at context from an interlinear, and it shows me a chiasm:

A. You cannot hear my word
X. You are like your father, Satan, the liar
A’. You do not believe me because I speak truth.

The literal rendering of 8:44 in Greek:

you out of the father the slanderer are, and the desires of the father of you you are willing to do; that one murderer was from beginning, and in the truth not stands, that not is truth in him; whenever he may speak the lie out of the own he speaks, that liar he is and the father of it

[the word “nature” isn’t there; just had to tease you about that, Cheryl! ]

While we have to extrapolate what “truth is not in him” entails, we should also contrast it with Jesus being Truth itself.

And another question is: Does God really “know evil”? If Jesus is Truth, can he “know” lies? In other words, did the serpent really say a truth when he said “like God, knowing good and evil“?

Certainly God is omniscient, but in what sense did the serpent mean “to know”? Knowledge about, or an experience within?

I think the key phrase here is “in him”.

Yeah, I can be cryptic too!

He also told the truth when he quoted scripture to Jesus in the wilderness.

I think Jesus was simply using common Hebrew hyperbole when he said there was no truth in Satan, but on the other hand, that even when Satan uses truth, it is for the purpose of deception. That’s also why so many are falling into “every wind of doctrine” in the churches; if it has a smidgen of truth they think it must be of God.

I refuse henceforth to give them any more of the attention they crave. Let them pile up sins for which God will judge them. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Well, I can’t say I’m at all surprised, but I had hoped for a miracle, that he would be “broken” and “remember the height from which [he had] fallen.”

Either way, though, you can finally put this behind you (hopefully!).

Can you tell us of the impressions your pastor had after the meeting?

But… but… but…

What about the way he treated you? About calling you a heretic and all?

Ah, can’t you just hold your hands over that blog and feel the love? That’s the kind of blog that draws in the lost and comforts the saved, I’m sure.

The cannibals are getting restless.

… or just kick some aner! 😉

Daz right, Cindy K! Gotta preach while it’s still legal.

Don: You can always say you didn’t learn anything new, so you’re off the hook. (And aren’t men always saying, “Ha! I already knew that!” anyway?)   🙂

Cheryl: I’ll bet you’ll be SO happy when that meeting is over! Regardless of outcome, you will have done the right thing and gone the extra mile.

I went and read some more. Then I blogged. Then I mourned the final death blow the male supremacists have imposed upon the Body.