Verse 7 uses the second class of people as evidence for the first, which indicates only one class in the first place.
What does this mean?
You had asserted that 1 Cor 8 was talking about two different classes of people, one class which didn't have the knowledge that their was one God, and another class which acknowledged that as fact, yet still felt defiled in eating the meat offered to them. It looked to me like a paraphrase of verse 7, except for one important fact - in verse 7, the second clause is offered as evidence of the first. Only one class of people is ever mentioned in verse 7, and these people are referred to for the rest of the chapter as the weak.
The fact that only one class of people is explicitly
mentioned, is irrelevant IMHO.
Surprisingly enough, you didn't.
Yes i did! Ā It's just that you didn't agree... but given that you ignored half the argument, i'm not surprised!
As a matter of fact, (a) I didn't ignore half the argument and (b) you totally misunderstood my rebuttal.
Allow me to reiterate:
(Phil @ last time)
Two relevant verses from chapter 10:
7: Do not be idolaters as some of them were
14: shun the worship of idols
Differences between this chapter and ch 8 should be evident. Participation in the worship of idols was in this chapter active and deliberate. In chapter 8, people were NOT intending on worshipping these idols, and were worried that eating meat sacrificed to them would be seen (by God, the inference is) as such. Two different cases.
- I already agreed that in Chapter 8 people were not intending on worshipping these idols.
- I am not arguing that the people of Chapter 10 are the same as the people in Chapter 8.
Please read what I write.
Because (a) it needed emphasising, and (b) he obviously wanted to devote some space to it, taking care to discuss the issue in detail. What's wrong with that, Phil?
Nothing's wrong with that, in principle. But it wasn't what he was doing.
In both cases (Chapter 8 and Chapther 10) it's the same basic issue (the consequences of a belief in the existence of daimonion
and fellowship with same) under different circumstances.
Why is this so hard to accept, Phil?
Chapter 8 expressly defines the central doctrine of the Christian body. That central doctrine precludes any fellowship with people who believe in the existence of the devils in chapters 8 & 10.
Until you convince me that chapters 8 & 10 are talking about the same people, that argument holds no weight.
Firstly, I wasn't claiming that the same people are mentioned here, and secondly, you are now arguing that a belief in daimonion
is perfectly permissible despite the fact that Paul rules it out completely!
Until you can show me how chapters 8 and 10 leads Paul to different conclusions (ie, eating meat is good news under the right circumstances but bad news under the wrong from chapter 8, and don't fellowship with devils in chapter 10) and yet is still talking about the exact same people, then that argument holds no weight.
I didn't claim that he was talking about the same people! For crying out loud, Phil - could you please start reading what I write?
Here it is again:
But what does Paul go on to say, Phil?I Corinthians 10:28.
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake:
for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof:
Why does he say this, Phil? Because he does not wish the pagan to receive the impression that Christians are free to knowlingly
share in a meal which has been dedicated to idols. This would lead to the pagan believing that Christians are indeed permitted to drink the cup of devils and partake of their feasts - which is, of course, strictly forbidden in verses 20-21:But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
[/list]You can see for yourself that I am not
equating the individual here, with the weak individuals in I Corinthians 8.
Why you even bothered to present this straw man, I can hardly begin to imagine.
This is precisely why chapter 10 warns against the dangers of inadvertently leading non-believers to assume (erroneously) that Christians are free to enjoy fellowship with devils.
Yes indeed, the second half of chapter 10 says that. However, in the first half, Paul says that you cannot be a Christian and actively worship a different God.
I agree that this is what he says in the first half. I agree also that this is the point he makes in I Corinthians 8:6.
But now you have just contradicted your own interpretation of I Corinthians 8:6
, which (or so you confidently assured us) does not necessarily result in disfellowship for people who believe in daimonion.
This is absolutely fascinating, Phil.
And yes, to reassure all the heresy hunters who will look and find things i never said, as far as i'm concerned that includes people who believe in a triune godhead. These are the people to whom Paul is talking in chapter 10, an evidently different bunch to those in chapter 8.
If you accept that this is true, you must necessarily abandon your "People were free to believe in daimonion
should they so desire" argument.
You can't have them both, Phil.
Phil, if you are arguing that there is only one class of believers in chapter 8
Yes, i am. Ā
and that this class of believers not only accepted the existence of daimonion (other gods) but were permitted to remain in fellowship despite holding such a belief, I would urge you to re-read verse 6 until it hits home.
That's a gross over-simplification of my position.
Just how exactly is it a gross over-simplification of your position, Phil?
To become Christian, obviously everyone had to acknowledge the truth of verse 6. It doesn't change the fact that some people had, and would continue to have, trouble accepting it's implications. These are the people in verse 7 and onwards. They had an intellectual acceptance, but practically speaking, a lifetime of habit and conditioning made it hard to accept. Extra rules were then created by themselves, to protect themselves. Paul is saying the rest of the corinthians must respect that, and help in protecting their consciences, while continuing their education, obviously.
I agree with all of this. In short, what it means is that these people do not
in the existence of other gods, but have difficulty in applying this to their lives because of their long-standing tradition of idol worship.
Which is what I've already said myself, in previous posts.
So why all the fuss?
Not all have this knowledge. Why can't we just accept what the bible says about something and then worry about the implications, rather than allow our preconceptions to affect the way we interpret?
You've complained that i hadn't pinned down a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion i was attempting to arrive at was limited specifically to what was happening in Corinth. From there i wanted to apply it to our modern-day circumstances, but the application i described below should have been obvious anyway. I don't believe it's a particularly large leap of logic.
It seems to me that 1 Cor 8 implies a little more latitude than we would currently offer to those coming from other church backgrounds, many of whom can intellectually accept our doctrines, but practically speaking retain a certain level of superstition (perhaps regarding demons etc...).
I agree with you on the issue of superstition. I cannot
agree with you on the issue of a belief in daimonion
, since this was not
a matter of mere superstition but a matter of polytheism.
That is precisely why Paul condemns it in no uncertain terms.
I can hear the cries of panic and disgust already, so PLEASE do not take my comments as evidence of anything other than what i've said. They go no further than that.
The problem is that your comments they "go no further than that", they don't actually present us with a conclusion - and without a conclusion, you don't actually have an argument. You've just raised an issue and left it hanging in the air. That's not particularly useful to anyone, Phil. It is, in fact, the sort of thing which leads to people believing all kinds of funny ideas and subverting those around them.
You know - the sort of thing which has a tendency to occur rather frequently in certain parts of Australia.
I'm going to ignore these semantics, Phil. You know perfectly well that we're not talking about conscience issues here; we're talking about theological fundamentals
Sorry, i know this is out of order, but i thought it best to comment here. I know we're not talking about conscience issues. I know we're talking about fundamentals. But for goodness sake, people wouldn't make such a fuss about conscience issues if they didn't believe that insert pointless and irrelevant matter of taste and discretion here wasn't pretty important! Problem is, a lot of people often want to elevate what others see as conscience issues into the fundamentals category. So i'm not simply making semantic distinctions.
Well yes, you are in fact. You're trying to slide from essential doctrine to conscience issue in order to substantiate your ever-shifting argument from I Corinthians 8:6.
That won't wash, Phil.I Corinthians 8:6
contains a fundamental doctrine: that there are no gods but Yahweh.
This is a non-negotiable issue, Phil. It doesn't change. We can't just redefine it to suit ourselves.
So i read you correctly in saying that everything in the BASF is fundamental, and everything outside of it is either irrelevant or simply a conscience issue?
No, that's totally false. Not once have I said or implied this.
I would prefer to see a few more doctrines clearly articulated in the BASF (both Truth to be Received and Doctrines to be Rejected), but the fact that they are not there, does not prove that they are irrelevant or simply a conscience issue.
Nice try, though.
Now, in relation to whether ALL wrong doctrine leads to disfellowship i might first note that every single one of those verses you quoted is in reference to those who were deliberately teaching false doctrine or causing dissension. That in itself limits the applicability in this case, because i'm not talking about those who were teaching wrong doctrine, and i never was.
Irrelevant. You are trying to evade the logical conclusion, which is that wrong doctrine must necessarily lead to disfellowship. If the teachers are guilty, then so too are those who believe them.
There's no escape clause here, Phil.
But i will make a few comments specific to each passage:
Is [John/Paul] saying that these people may be fellowshipped, Phil? Or is he exhorting us to shun them? How many doctrines are mentioned here, Phil? Is it pick and mix, or does John's statement cover the lot?
1 Tim 6:3-5 - For reasons unknown you left out the preceding verses, which make it quite clear that the doctrines involved were related to the relationship between servant and master.
It's irrelevant, because the same principle applies. Wrong teaching leads to disfellowship. Wrong belief leads to disfellowship.
The "if anyone teaches otherwise" in verse 3 means the passage is not a universally applicable.
What? No, if anything, that means it is
universally applicable! If anyone
teaches otherwise. No exceptions.
One question about this one - a lot of versions don't have the from such withdraw thyself. Do you know why?
It's missing from a number of manuscripts.
Do you think it should be there, Phil?
II John 1:9-11 - Again, you left out the preceding verses which likewise limit the applicability. This passage was talking about those who were teaching that Jesus never came in the flesh. They were deceivers, they were doing wicked work, they were antichrist. So yes, this verse IS limited in application, and if you want to call that pick and mix then it's not my problem, since i didn't write it.
Actually, there is no such limitation. This is made clear when we examine the Greek - upon which I now invite A. T. Robertson's comment:And abideth not in the teaching of Christ (kai meĢ menoĢn en teĢi didacheĢi tou Christou).
Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christianļæ½s walk (1Jo_2:6). See Joh_7:16; Joh_18:19.
These Gnostics claimed to be the progressives, the advanced thinkers, and were anxious to relegate Christ to the past in their onward march. This struggle goes on always among those who approach the study of Christ. Is he a landmark merely or is he our goal and pattern?
Progress we all desire, but progress toward Christ, not away from him. Reactionary obscurantists wish no progress toward Christ, but desire to stop and camp where they are. True progress includes the past (Westcott). Jesus Christ is still ahead of us all calling us to come on to him.
It's the doctrine of
Christ; the doctrine that he taught. It's not the doctrine about
Marvin R. Vincent confirms the point:2Jo 1:9 - Whosoever transgresseth (ĻĪ±Ļ Īæ ĻĪ±ĻĪ±Ī²Ī±Ī¹ĢĪ½ĻĪ½)
The best texts read ĻĻĪæĪ±ĢĪ³ĻĪ½ goeth onward. So Rev., with taketh the lead in margin. The meaning is, whosoever advances beyond the limits of Christian doctrine.
Others explain of those who would set themselves up as teachers, or take the lead. Such false progress is contrasted with abiding in the teaching. On the construction, ĻĪ±Ļ every one, with the article and participle, see on 1Jo_3:3.Abideth - in (Ī¼ĪµĢĪ½ĻĪ½ ĪµĪ½)
See on 1Jo_2:6.Doctrine (Ī“Ī¹Ī“Ī±ĻĪ·)
Better, as Rev., teaching.Of ChristNot the teaching concerning Christ, but the teaching of Christ Himself and of His apostles. See Heb_2:3. So according to New Testament usage. See Joh_18:19; Act_2:12; Rev_2:14, Rev_2:15.In the doctrine of ChristOmit of Christ.
ĪĪ¹Ī“Ī±ĻĪ·Ģ teaching, is used thus absolutely, Rom_16:17; Tit_1:9.
Again: it's the doctrine of
Christ; the doctrine that he taught. It's not the doctrine about
Titus 1:9-11 - A slightly different case, but it first positively affirms the teaching of correct doctrine, and again, rejects those who teach the opposite.
Well, that's pretty clear isn't it? Reject those who teach the opposite.
Not "Just indulge them, because it's no big deal."
Let's see, what was the consequence to the Cretans? Verse 14 says they were giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth. Now, i don't know exactly what that is talking about, but it doesn't seem to be universal in context.
What do you mean by "doesn't seem to be universal in context"? Which wrong doctrines were they permitted to accept, pray tell?
The commands of men refers to the circumcision faction of previous verses, whereas the Jewish myths seems to refer to those who were listening to the teaching of the vain talkers. Perhaps more important is that disfellowship is not mentioned
Argument from silence. Invalid.
simply a rebuke for those who believed the misinformation, and the silencing of those who wished to teach it. Arguably, the mouths must be stopped business is a euphemism for disfellowship, but it only applies to the teachers.
Rom 16:17-18 - As already mentioned, the disfellowship only refers to the teachers, not the simple who believed them.
What?! So we're free to believe wrong doctrine without
being disfellowshipped, just as long as we weren't the ones who were teaching it in the first place?!
Phil, your position is illogical, unScriptural and highly alarming.
continued... i just noticed a couple more things i'll comment on. Please let me know if you think there's anything else i haven't addressed adequately?
How about "70% of my proof texts..."?
That was the purpose of quoting Barnes; to emphasise that the principle belief of the Christians was the principle belief of the Jews: that there is only one God, who we worship.
No disagreement. But doesn't this
The logical extension of this is that anyone believing in other gods (such as the devils to whom food was offered) must necessarily be disfellowshipped.
contradict with this?
These people did not believe that these were literal gods (in the sense of being daimonion) but only intermediate beings, such as angels. They represent one particular class of people.
Paul encourages his brethren to be patient with those who, in the words of Barnes...
...supposed that some invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favor should be sought, or his wrath averted by sacrifice.
Nope, not at all. You just didn't read it correctly. There is a difference between believing in daimonion
and believing in intermediate beings, such as angels.Daimonion
were believed to be literal gods; angels and spirits were not
believed to be literal gods. Hence a belief in the former must necessarily be condemned, while a belief in the latter could be safely accommdated.
I'm just trying to work out how out one hand they should be disfellowshipped for having a superstition about these devils, and on the other hand, we should be patient with them. Please explain?
See above. If they believed that these devils were mere angels or spirits of some other kind, their brethren and sisters were to be patient with them. If on the other hand, they believed that these devils were literal daimonion
, they could not remain in fellowship.
Polytheism is (may I remind you) condemned many times in the Bible.
These people clearly did not believe that an idol is nothing in the world. They believed in the existence of the daimonion which the idol was intended to represent
and they believed that there was a need to share some measure of fellowship with it.
Pardon? In chapter 8 they were expressly avoiding doing so, and would only do so when encouraged by their stronger brethren to do something against their conscience. It's a very different case to the deliberate act in chapter 10.
For some strange reason you pretended that my argument from I Corinthians 10
was taken from the first half of the chapter, as opposed to the second.
Correct this error, and we may proceed.