Jump to content


Photo

1 Cor 8


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 16 March 2003 - 03:47 PM

Fort, i've been horribly busy this weekend, and i'm trying to be disciplined at uni, so i thought i'd give this a rest for a few days.

You seem to think that I'm contradicting myself, because you don't appear to realise that I recognise two sets of knowledge in verse 4. One is the issue, the other is not.


hmmm.... Gurny, i can't help but wonder if you read this section of my post:

You highlighted the wrong sections of the quote. "As concerning the eating of meats offered to idols" is not a piece of knowledge, it is simply Paul introducing the topic. And in introducing the topic, Paul is attempting to educate the Corinthians, who couldn't understand the problems their b&s had that the problem went deeper than simply "meats offered to idols".


In case i didn't make that clear enough, there is only one broad piece of knowledge in the sense that Paul is using it, introduced in verse 4. The other half of the verse, which you insist is another piece of knowledge, is nothing more than a topic heading. Have another squiz at the verse:
1 Cor 8:4 - Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."
See what i'm getting at? Topic heading, then the deeper reason for it's existance.

Phil

#22 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 17 March 2003 - 04:34 AM

In case i didn't make that clear enough, there is only one broad piece of knowledge in the sense that Paul is using it, introduced in verse 4. The other half of the verse, which you insist is another piece of knowledge, is nothing more than a topic heading. Have another squiz at the verse:

<dir>1 Cor 8:4 - Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."</dir>


Nope, still not what I meant. :D

See what i'm getting at? Topic heading, then the deeper reason for it's existance.


I agree that 'as to the eating of idols' is a topic heading. :eek:

#23 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 17 March 2003 - 10:40 PM

Phil -

QUOTE
You appear to be arguing that verses 7-8 leave an opening for sharing fellowship with those who believe in the "gods" behind the sacrifices. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)


Ok... i can see where that misunderstanding has arisen, and i was hoping it wouldn't. I'm not trying to argue a case for "open fellowship" here. Personally, i think the practice is probably the most dangerous thing facing Christadelphia today... And i certainly don't believe that my arguments here have suggested such a thing (i hope noone thinks that anyway). But rather than read that belief into the text, i'm trying to work out what it actually SAYS. Let's establish what it contains first, and then worry about how it applies to today. Initially, i thought it was plain as day, which is why i asked the question, but it seems not...


OK, so now we know what you're not arguing.

But what are you arguing?

This specific case does seem to involve a certain amount of latitude given to those for whom verse 4-6 and the eating of meat offered to idols still caused a level of confusion. As you pointed out from Robertson's work, verse 7 mentions a "force of habit" that was involved. I tried to make it clear right from the start that i was assuming environmental factors and indoctrination as a prerequisite for these people.

(might i add at this point that renowned scholars are still subject to the same forces of bias and indoctrination as the rest of us, and therefore cannot necessarily be conclusive on matters involved ambiguity)

Note then the Robertson does not attempt to define the knowledge (at least not in the quote you gave). He simply says that knowledge has to overcome indoctrination. Fair enough, i totally agree... "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" doesn't allow any level of personal complacency. (However, it doesn't imply the need for perfection, only the need for us to strive toward it.)


I agree that it doesn't imply the need for perfection.

QUOTE
As I see it, there are two classes of people here:


Those who do still believe in the "gods" behind the idols (in which case they should not be in fellowship.)

Those who do not believe in the existence of the "gods", but still feel defiled by any association with the food which is offered to them. (Of course, there is no basis for feeling this way, as the apostle Paul informs us - but here he makes allowance for the weak conscience.)




I don't believe Paul makes this distinction here, and i'd need you to supply the evidence from the passage.


I didn't say that Paul makes such a distinction. I am saying that I believe that there are two classes of people here. I arrive at this conclusion on the basis of the evidence before me.

What is that evidence?
  • That not all have the knowledge to which Paul refers. (First class.)
  • That there are weak brethren who do have the knowledge, but who still have trouble with their consciences when they eat meat offered to idols. (Second class.)
See also Romans 14.

QUOTE
We see a similar problem with the case of men who took their father's wives.


Um, we certainly see a problem there, but i fail to see how it's similar. That passage specifically talks about disfellowshipping, 1 Cor 8 doesn't.


It doesn't have to. Elsewhere, Paul clearly argues that wrong doctrine must necessarily lead to disfellowship - regardless of what that wrong doctrine is.

How can you possibly claim that he makes an exception with the idols/devils issue?

The weak brother, continuing in this practice, would perish simply because that was the inevitable direction his belief would take him. How could continually doing something you believed was wrong have any other consequence? Nowhere is disfellowshipping mentioned.


*snip*

It doesn't have to be mentioned here. It's taken as as read. It's a basic principle of Christian fellowship.

And it is clearly mentioned later in the epistle:
I Corinthians 10:14-21.
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
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.

I guess Paul was expecting his audience to read on, instead of stopping at Chapter 8 and concluding (erroneously) that no mention is ever made of disfellowship in connexion with the idols issue.

You can't just pick and choose, Phil. You have to address Paul's epistles as a united whole.

I must say i'm baffled as to why you quoted this section. Is it supposed to be rebuttal??


*snip*

No, it's simply exegesis. I am trying to show you how I understand this passage, and I am using Barnes because he puts it rather well.

How could it be a rebuttal? You've posted nothing to rebut.

QUOTE
By contrast, those who profess false doctrine (such as a literal belief in the "gods" here referred to) cannot be permitted to remain in the body.


Again, i'm not sure any of these would have been "professing" this belief, as such. Paul never says that they were, he simply argues that their knowledge wasn't perfect, providing their reticence to engage in perfectly harmless meat-eating as evidence. As for disfellowshipping, i don't believe it's even mentioned in the passage


I never claimed that it was mentioned in the passage.

I simply took care to read the passage in light of Paul's other (qualified) statements on the subject.

and i'll need to see evidence.


I Corinthians 10:14-21.
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
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.


'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#24 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 19 March 2003 - 02:26 AM

Evangelion, thanks for addressing my arguments!

OK, so now we know what you're not arguing.

But what are you arguing?


I'll quote from my previous post:

Let's establish what it contains first, and then worry about how it applies to today. Initially, i thought it was plain as day, which is why i asked the question, but it seems not...


What i'm trying to debate is simply this: "what does the passage say?" When this has been established, then i'll worry about present day applications, rather than trying to force my desired present day application into the passage. I believe you refer to that as the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, right? See, i have been listening! (new emoticon for that please, Mishael? :unsure: )

I didn't say that Paul makes such a distinction. I am saying that I believe that there are two classes of people here. I arrive at this conclusion on the basis of the evidence before me.

What is that evidence?

  • That not all have the knowledge to which Paul refers. (First class.)
  • That there are weak brethren who do have the knowledge, but who still have trouble with their consciences when they eat meat offered to idols. (Second class.)


Obviously, i'm going to debate this point, because the context certainly does not support it. Verse 7 uses the "second class" of people as evidence for the first, which indicates only one class in the first place. In this passage, that is - chapters 8 and 10 are not equivalent, which i'll explain in a few moments. (Rom 14 also seems to be a different situation, but i'm not confident in that, having not looked at the passage intensely. For now, i'll just stay within 1 Corinthians. This letter should have been sufficient for them on this issue.)

It doesn't have to. Elsewhere, Paul clearly argues that wrong doctrine must necessarily lead to disfellowship - regardless of what that wrong doctrine is.

How can you possibly claim that he makes an exception with the idols/devils issue?


Would you mind providing some passages where Paul says that ALL wrong doctrine leads to disfellowship? For that matter, how do you define "wrong"? You and me might take a different stance on many issues that neither of us would declare to be worth disfellowshipping over... If the views are contradictory, only one of them can be objectively true, making the other one therefore "wrong". Is it not classified as doctrine? Some may say i'm being pedantic in requiring this distinction, but if wrong doctrine (unqualified) necessarily leads to disfellowship, then the distinction needs to be made.

Ok, the chapter 10 issue:

And it is clearly mentioned later in the epistle:

I Corinthians 10:14-21.
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
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.

I guess Paul was expecting his audience to read on, instead of stopping at Chapter 8 and concluding (erroneously) that no mention is ever made of disfellowship in connexion with the idols issue.

You can't just pick and choose, Phil. You have to address Paul's epistles as a united whole.


Ev, i have absolutely no intention of picking and choosing. But you'd have to ask, why would Paul bring up exactly the same issue just two chapters later, and give it just as much page-space? Is it simply because it needed emphasising, or rather because the two situations are different. I prefer the latter view, and in my opinion, this is where the different class of people comes in.

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.

Further points which make this distinction somewhat clearer. Chapter 10, read at face value, outright forbids the eating of meat, whereas Chapter 8 says only to not eat if it offended one's b&s. Why the difference? Because the motivation for the eating of the meat was different in each case.

I am trying to show you how I understand this passage, and I am using Barnes because he puts it rather well.


um... but i agreed with Barnes? You, on the other hand, quoted him to argue against a view that he seemed to agree with. I'll provide the relevant quotes if you want. Just read through the section that i re-quoted.

How could it be a rebuttal? You've posted nothing to rebut.


Then what's all the stuff i've posted so far that you seem to disagree with. I remain confused... :blink:

#25 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 31 March 2003 - 08:31 PM

Ev,

Just thought i'd let you know that i'm still waiting on a response here. No rush, but when you've got the time, i'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. :nerd:

thanks :angel:

#26 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 01 April 2003 - 10:47 AM

Phil - thanks for refreshing this thread. I'd completely forgotten about it. :blink:

QUOTE
I didn't say that Paul makes such a distinction. I am saying that I believe that there are two classes of people here. I arrive at this conclusion on the basis of the evidence before me.

What is that evidence?

That not all have the knowledge to which Paul refers. (First class.)

That there are weak brethren who do have the knowledge, but who still have trouble with their consciences when they eat meat offered to idols. (Second class.)


Obviously, i'm going to debate this point, because the context certainly does not support it.


We'll see.

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?

In this passage, that is - chapters 8 and 10 are not equivalent, which i'll explain in a few moments.


Surprisingly enough, you didn't.

(Rom 14 also seems to be a different situation, but i'm not confident in that, having not looked at the passage intensely. For now, i'll just stay within 1 Corinthians. This letter should have been sufficient for them on this issue.)


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. 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."

Phil, if you are arguing that there is only one class of believers in chapter 8, 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.

QUOTE
It doesn't have to. Elsewhere, Paul clearly argues that wrong doctrine must necessarily lead to disfellowship - regardless of what that wrong doctrine is.

How can you possibly claim that he makes an exception with the idols/devils issue?

Would you mind providing some passages where Paul says that ALL wrong doctrine leads to disfellowship?


Sorry, but I don't know whether to ROTFL or cry here. :eek: Which ecclesia did you say you belonged to...? :blink:

As for those passages... you wanted to see - well, just off the cuff:
Romans 16:17-18.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Is 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 Paul's statement cover the lot?

I Timothy 6:3-5.
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words
, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings.
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Is 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 Paul's statement cover the lot?

Titus 1:9-11.
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision:
Whose mouths must be stopped
, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Is 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 Paul's statement cover the lot?

And from John:
II John 1:9-11.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed:
For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Is John 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?

For that matter, how do you define "wrong"?


Something that is contrary to the fundamentals. You know - just like Paul says. That's why we have the BASF, remember?

You and me might take a different stance on many issues that neither of us would declare to be worth disfellowshipping over...


*snip*

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. What you're describing here is a conscience issue, not a point of doctrine. I think we both know what "doctrine" is, and how it's defined. If you're not sure, just ask someone to give you a copy of the BASF. I received one at my baptism.

Ok, the chapter 10 issue:

QUOTE
And it is clearly mentioned later in the epistle:

I Corinthians 10:14-21.
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
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.

I guess Paul was expecting his audience to read on, instead of stopping at Chapter 8 and concluding (erroneously) that no mention is ever made of disfellowship in connexion with the idols issue.

You can't just pick and choose, Phil. You have to address Paul's epistles as a united whole.


Ev, i have absolutely no intention of picking and choosing.


Great. So you'll accept that I Corinthians 10 means exactly what it says.

But you'd have to ask, why would Paul bring up exactly the same issue just two chapters later, and give it just as much page-space? Is it simply because it needed emphasising, or rather because the two situations are different.


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?

I prefer the latter view, and in my opinion, this is where the different class of people comes in.


This will be fascinating, I'm sure. "Wrong doctrine need not lead to disfellowship." Lead on, Phil. Be my guest. Show me from the Scriptures that wrong doctrine need not lead to disfellowship. Show me from the Scriptures that Paul contradicted himself. <_<

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.

Further points which make this distinction somewhat clearer. Chapter 10, read at face value, outright forbids the eating of meat, whereas Chapter 8 says only to not eat if it offended one's b&s. Why the difference? Because the motivation for the eating of the meat was different in each case.


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.

By the way - just what exactly does your interpretation result in? Do you have a conclusion of sorts? Why are you taking such care to leave your views undefined?

QUOTE
I am trying to show you how I understand this passage, and I am using Barnes because he puts it rather well.


um... but i agreed with Barnes?


So what's the problem here, Phil?

You, on the other hand, quoted him to argue against a view that he seemed to agree with. I'll provide the relevant quotes if you want. Just read through the section that i re-quoted.


No, I made it clear why I was quoting him.
Remember - the principle belief of the Christians was the principle belief of the Jews: that there is only one God, who we worship.

Thus Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible) in reference to I Corinthians 8:5 -

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. 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.

I made this abundantly clear when I followed up the first citation from Barnes with this:
There is no room here for fellowship with individuals who profess a belief in any of the "gods" to which Paul now refers. Indeed, any suggestion of a plurality of gods (however these gods are defined) is ruled heretical by default. The early Christians insisted that no-one could be fellowshipped who continued to profess such a belief, just as they insisted that no-one could be fellowshipped who continued to commit fornication (or any other immoral act.)
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.
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.

The others are identified by Clarke, in his own analysis of this chapter:
This is spoken in reference to what is said, 1Co_8:4 : We know that an idol is nothing in the world; for some with a conscience of the idol, viz. that it is something, eat it - the flesh that was offered to the idol, as a thing thus offered, considering the feast as a sacred banquet, by which they have fellowship with the idol.

And their conscience being weak - not properly instructed in Divine things, is defiled - he performs what he does as an act of religious worship, and thus his conscience contracts guilt through this idolatry.

As in the commencement of Christianity, among the Jews that were converted, there were many found who incorporated the rites of the law with the principles of the Gospel; so, doubtless, among the Gentiles, there were several who did not at once throw aside all their idolatry or idolatrous notions, but preserved some of its more spiritual and imposing parts, and might think it necessary to mingle idolatrous feasts with the rites of Christianity; as the sacrament of the Lords supper was certainly considered as a feast upon a sacrifice, as I have proved in my Discourse on the Nature and Design of the Eucharist.

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. (A course of action which Paul prohibits in I Corinthians 10.)

So:
  • There were people who had not been properly converted; they had not fully succeeded in leaving behind their pagan beliefs and traditions. The Corinthian ecclesia was foolishly indulging these people - a situation that Paul is keen to rectify.
  • There were people who - even though they had been properly converted - still wrestled with the pagan association of food offered to idols. The apostle Paul confirms that these people may be lost if their weak conscience is further eroded by those who can eat the food offered to idols without fear.
Feel free to disagree if you wish. But bear in mind that by doing so, you ignore the prohibition against fellowshipping those who possess wrong doctrine.

QUOTE
How could it be a rebuttal? You've posted nothing to rebut.


Then what's all the stuff i've posted so far that you seem to disagree with. I remain confused...


From the context of my words, you will see that I was referring to my previous use of Barnes. At that time, you hadn't actually presented an argument.

Since then, you have posted an argument, but evaded any attempt to define the logical conclusion of that argument. This leaves you free to redefine it at your leisure, in response to any rebuttals which come your way. Your conclusion is left unstated and (consequently) impossible to pin down. :thumbsdown:
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#27

  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2003 - 04:11 PM

Great post Evangelion ^_^

Phil, just like to make one comment. The whole purpose of disfellowshipping someone is not only for the ecclesia's sake but the Brother or Sister in question. I have seen many cases where someone is disfellowshipped, is away from the ecclesia for some time but then sees the error of his/her ways and wishes to resume fellowship. The person truly repents and requests to come back.

Now look at the context of Matthew 18. Verses 15-17 speaks of how a brother who is erring must be approached and dealt with. If he will not admit his wrong he must be "unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

BUT, look at the conversation between Peter and Jesus immediately after the discussion on disfellowshipping brethren. They speak of forgiveness. How many times must we forgive? Seventy times seven if needs be.

I have seen too often an erring brother repenting and reapplying for fellowship and *still* being treated as an outcast. Sure, we permit him to come back, participate in ecclesial duties and pass the emblems to him but most times this person is 'marked' as someone who once caused trouble and we must keep our distance from. That's the problem!! -_-

The whole idea of withdrawing fellowship from someone, whether it is because they preach wrong doctrine or behave unbecoming as a disciple of Christ or whatever, is to protect the ecclesia AND save the brother! God doesn't want us to have anything to do with him so he will know he is an outcast, in the state he is in, and so he will *think* on what he has done.

It's like at school. If you are annoying or a bossy boots (as I was :whistle: ) sooner or later kids will ignore you and not want to hang around you. At first you don't care but after a while you feel very alone and start wanting your friends back. You then change your approach. You stop being bossy and become more friendly and co-operative. Your friends accept you back and begin to enjoy your company again because you are more acceptable.

Same concept with withdrawing fellowship. The ecclesia is protected and the individual is, hopefully, saved. :)

#28 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 01 April 2003 - 05:45 PM

Thanks for the response Leah...

I totally agree with you as to the purpose of disfellowship. I'm just somewhat dubious about it's application to 1 Cor 8. But i'll get to that in my next post.. ;)

#29 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 01 April 2003 - 08:23 PM

Ev, that was certainly a quick response there! And quite comprehensive, so thanks very much.

One thing i've been wondering, i've been trying to work out what ROTFL stands for, because the letters themselves look like the noise made by someone choking on a mouthful of rice. But i'm pretty sure it's not that. The best i can come up with is "Rolling On The Floor Laughing"... is that ridiculously off-track?

Now, to the business at hand. :nerd:

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".

Surprisingly enough, you didn't.


Yes i did! :D It's just that you didn't agree... but given that you ignored half the argument, i'm not surprised! Allow me to reiterate:

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.


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. :P

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. 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.

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. 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.

Phil, if you are arguing that there is only one class of believers in chapter 8


Yes, i am. :D

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. 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.

"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 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. :ph34r:

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.

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?

--------------------------

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.

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. The "if anyone teaches otherwise" in verse 3 means the passage is not a universally applicable.
One question about this one - a lot of versions don't have the "from such withdraw thyself". Do you know why?
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.
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. 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. 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, 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.

#30 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 01 April 2003 - 08:35 PM

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?
----------------------

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?

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.
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.


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?

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


i agree.

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.

#31 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 02 April 2003 - 03:43 AM

Phil - I'll get back to this later. But in the meantime, I need some clarification.

Since you've done your best to avoid the conclusion that we may not have fellowship with those who believe wrong doctrine, perhaps you could tell me what this means?
Galatians 1:6-12.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Now, I've given you plenty of context here, and you can see for yourself that no particular doctrine is specified.

Take careful note of the following:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

How much wiggle room do you have here, Phil? Perhaps you will make some kind of argument from an arbitary definition of "gospel of Christ"? ;) Would you like to make another argument from "context", or would you rather accept that the apostle means what he says? :whistle:

I'm guessing that the answer will be "No, the apostle makes no such argument. Not once does Paul ever claim that wrong doctrine must necessarily lead to disfellowship."

Correct?
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#32 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 02 April 2003 - 06:41 AM

Phil - I'll get back to this later. But in the meantime, I need some clarification.


no worries.

Since you've done your best to avoid the conclusion that we may not have fellowship with those who believe wrong doctrine


Hey! Be fair. I've only been saying it doesn't apply in ALL cases, and that there seem to be some special circumstances in 1 Cor 8. You brought in a whole lot of quotes to try and prove your case (one which i don't entirely disagree with anyway). All i've done so far is point out that they didn't really say what you thought they were saying. I wasn't doing my best to avoid anything at all, simply stating what the passages themselves stated!

Galatians 1:6-12.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.[/i]


Now, I've given you plenty of context here, and you can see for yourself that no particular doctrine is specified.

my emphasis

Nope. No particular doctrine is mentioned. :D So i'll just say what i said about all the others, which is that while Paul "marvels" at those who follow the false teaching, the only ones for whom disfellowship is recommended is those who were, surprise surprise, teaching the wrong doctrine.

Besides which, even if no particular doctrine is mentioned, it could be argued that since the entire letter was written to combat legalism (specifically, the insistence by some that circumcision was necessary), then that is wrong doctrine Paul was complaining about. Remember the circumcision faction from Titus? Sounds familiar.

How much wiggle room do you have here, Phil? Perhaps you will make some kind of argument from an arbitary definition of "gospel of Christ"?  Would you like to make another argument from "context", or would you rather accept that the apostle means what he says?

I'm guessing that the answer will be "No, the apostle makes no such argument. Not once does Paul ever claim that wrong doctrine must necessarily lead to disfellowship."

Correct?


Based on what i just wrote, i'm not exactly sure which of those categories my answer falls into. Judge for yourself... :P Paul certainly does argue that expressly taught wrong doctrine would lead to disfellowship, at least we've established that much so far!

#33

  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2003 - 08:13 AM

One thing i've been wondering, i've been trying to work out what ROTFL stands for, because the letters themselves look like the noise made by someone choking on a mouthful of rice. But i'm pretty sure it's not that. The best i can come up with is "Rolling On The Floor Laughing"... is that ridiculously off-track?


Now I'm rolling on the floor laughing :D

#34 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 15 April 2003 - 12:26 PM

Phil -

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!  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.


Two points:
  • 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.


Um, hello?! 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.  

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 actually believe 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. :rolleyes:

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. :lol:

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 mē menōn en tēi didachēi 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 Christian�s 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 Christ.

Marvin R. Vincent confirms the point:
2Jo 1:9 - Whosoever transgresseth (πας ο παραβαίνων)
The best texts read προάγων 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, πας every one, with the article and participle, see on 1Jo_3:3.

Abideth - in (μένων εν)
See on 1Jo_2:6.

Doctrine (διδαχη)
Better, as Rev., teaching.

Of Christ
Not 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 Christ
Omit of Christ. Διδαχή 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 Christ.

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? :confused:

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.


See below.

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?

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.

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.


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


i agree.

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.
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#35 luke

luke

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 06:01 AM

Is it possible for 1 Cor. 8:7 to be constructed in the following way?

But not everyone knows this: Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

That might not be clear, so I'll try to explain what I mean:

Could 1 Cor. 8:4-6 be something that all the believers knew (v1,4: "all have knowledge...we know"), but 1 Cor. 8:7 brings in something that not everyone knows (the "this" referring to what follows, not what has just been said: "But not everyone knows this: i.e., some people (because of their previous experiences) still think food sacrificed to idols is defiled.)

I see a potential problems, that "not everyone knows this:..." would probably ordinarily be directly followed by a statement about what the people don't know (e.g., "but not everyone knows this: that meat offered to idol is not defiled") rather than a description about what the people are confused about.

Edited by luke, 27 August 2011 - 06:02 AM.


#36 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 27 August 2011 - 07:04 AM

Although the NIV leaves it out, the next bit does start with an and/but; NASB for example: "However not all men have this knowledge; but some ...", which, coupled with your own objections, makes your proposed construction a little unlikely.

v5-6 are an aside, the thought more or less goes like this:

With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that “an idol in this world is nothing”. But this knowledge is not shared by all. And some eat this food as an idol sacrifice.


Paul is contrasting what they know about idols with a different group, who don't share their knowledge that an idol is nothing.

Edited by Flappie, 27 August 2011 - 07:05 AM.

"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#37 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 August 2011 - 12:56 PM

an idol has no real existence,

Yes it does, an idol is a bit of clay, a demon is a spirit being, they are two different things, an idol has an existence as a bit of clay usually i.e would you say a statue of the virgin mary had "no real existence"? Not literally but only as a figure of speech (in the context).

So that must be a mistranslation OR its ontological (which is the natural reading of the text). Even an idol like the pope has an existence, but is nothing in my eyes, just a ignorant man (i.e ontological lack).

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. 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."

Where does it say "believe" that is both an extrapolation and a logic leap. It says those who have fellowship/worship devils. Their ‘nothingness’ is not a non-existence but rather an ontological lack.

Verse 5 - For though there be that are called gods — By the heathens, (as they style them,)

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many)

No matter how much I have tried I have never been able to see the CD POV here. To me it says idols are nothing (i.e we worship the true God), its a bit like me saying the pope is nothing in the eyes of the God, just a man, it cannot mean idols are literally nothing, because that is not true, idols are objects made from clay or whatever or obstacles in our mind, an idol is not a demon they are two different things, the idea was that an idol is like a po box for demons, whether psychologically or literally. When you worship something or someone (like the papacy) rejected by God then Satan and his demons procure worship to themselves (invest that object or person/influence them), hence "And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast" = pope and Satan

The argument that demons are gods and their is no God but one, cannot say anymore than pagans who believe demons are gods are wrong, they are nothing (ontological lack) in the eyes of Christians or God. Remember the word demon is mans definition not Gods, Gods definition is they are not Gods, but I cannot make the leap to read that as proof of literal non existence as its no different to me saying to ex Catholics 'you know the pope is nothing and not a god, dont you?, there is but one God'...

Two main problems
1. an idol is not a demon, its a bit of clay, a demons a spirit being.
2. what proof is their this is not ontological lack as Christadelphians use it elsewhere when it fits?
3. Rev 13:4 Satan/dragon gave the pope his authority as the text says (and ive been shown) or the Roman Empire/paganism or both? i.e unless my vision of Satan was a symbolic but non literal visual personification/lesson in order to impress the point the papacy is spoken of in Rev 13:4, i.e in the same way Christadelphians claim the Bible is written (with God/Jesus pretending he exists). Even if that was true I am not sure it is possible to use 1 Corin 8 to support it.

At present I remain with John Wesley on this
My link

Daimonion were believed to be literal gods; angels and spirits were not believed to be literal gods.

Thats mans definition of the word daimonion not Gods. It is mans definition that they are gods that Paul is challenging.

Edited by Mercia2, 28 August 2011 - 01:02 AM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#38 Phil

Phil

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 04:22 PM

Blimey. Here's a blast from the past. Back to the good old days when Fort and I (and Ev and I) didn't speak to each other except to have a ripsnorter of an argument.

#39 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:13 PM

an idol has no real existence,

Yes it does, an idol is a bit of clay, a demon is a spirit being, they are two different things, an idol has an existence as a bit of clay usually i.e would you say a statue of the virgin mary had "no real existence"? Not literally but only as a figure of speech (in the context).

So that must be a mistranslation OR its ontological (which is the natural reading of the text). Even an idol like the pope has an existence, but is nothing in my eyes, just a ignorant man (i.e ontological lack).

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. 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."

Where does it say "believe" that is both an extrapolation and a logic leap. It says those who have fellowship/worship devils. Their ‘nothingness’ is not a non-existence but rather an ontological lack.

Verse 5 - For though there be that are called gods — By the heathens, (as they style them,)

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many)

No matter how much I have tried I have never been able to see the CD POV here. To me it says idols are nothing (i.e we worship the true God), its a bit like me saying the pope is nothing in the eyes of the God, just a man, it cannot mean idols are literally nothing, because that is not true, idols are objects made from clay or whatever or obstacles in our mind, an idol is not a demon they are two different things, the idea was that an idol is like a po box for demons, whether psychologically or literally. When you worship something or someone (like the papacy) rejected by God then Satan and his demons procure worship to themselves (invest that object or person/influence them), hence "And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast" = pope and Satan

The argument that demons are gods and their is no God but one, cannot say anymore than pagans who believe demons are gods are wrong, they are nothing (ontological lack) in the eyes of Christians or God. Remember the word demon is mans definition not Gods, Gods definition is they are not Gods, but I cannot make the leap to read that as proof of literal non existence as its no different to me saying to ex Catholics 'you know the pope is nothing and not a god, dont you?, there is but one God'...

Two main problems
1. an idol is not a demon, its a bit of clay, a demons a spirit being.
2. what proof is their this is not ontological lack as Christadelphians use it elsewhere when it fits?


At present I remain with John Wesley on this
My link

Daimonion were believed to be literal gods; angels and spirits were not believed to be literal gods.

Thats mans definition of the word daimonion not Gods. It is mans definition that they are gods that Paul is challenging.



EDIT: 2012 This post has been edited in 2012 because I now agree with the Christadelphian view on the Satan as a non literal metaphor invented by God to help tell a story (a personification based on a pagan cultural reference point).
I repent of my previous views and would like to offer this explanation.
My entire polemic with fervent zeal against what I saw as deniel of a literal Satan was out of character to the rest of the way I interpret the Bible. I would like add I am not a believer in ghosts or superstitious things in general but my error was known and all planned by God/the Holy Spirit in advance so I can be humbled and the glory of God be shown.
My error was due to a combination of several factors, the main one was God gave me a vision as a 10 year old child at a papal mass in 1982 in which I was shown the pope become the Satan. What I thought I was being shown was the literal reality of something the Christadelphians did not believe in, but I was actually being shown confirmation that what the Christadelphians believed in was correct, the Satan was a visual metaphor the Holy Spirit/angel created in my mind so when I shouted "the pope is Satan' at the end, or rather "oh no its the pope" (with all surrounding Catholics by now aware I was claiming to see Satan), from a Catholics cultural reference point it is obvious what they are to learn from this, yet of course Christadelphians understand accomdation better than anyone and it worked like nothing else could. Another factor in my error is I did not see what happened to me as in the same context as the visions in the Bible (because they are prophets), but it dawned on me John was seeing Satan but it was the Holy Spirit creating a vision in his mind based on a cultural reference point John could understand (or the personification part of the vision cannot work), it cannot work unless the vision is accomodating their idea of evil. When I remember my vision now it was obviously intended to be symbolic, it was a visual reference, it was scarey but thinking back it was intentionally rediculous as well. I would like to thank Christadephians for their patience with me in this matter, especially Fortigurn and I would recommend everyone discover the brilliant and inspirational work of John Thomas in every regard, he just left one matter as a work in progress (the idenifty of the Holy Spirit), so in return for helping me please complete his work and rediscover that zeal. The Holy Spirit could not or would not talk to me again from the past until I let go of that literal Satan myth. I said, ‘so what I saw was not real then’ and He replied ‘of course not’ and then said ‘you fought them for years’. The reasons the apostles rejoiced as they went from town to town in Acts is because they knew all these secrets!


the main one was God gave me a vision as a 10 year old child at a papal mass in 1982

Edit: Just so no one gets the idea God gives visions to children of scarey monsters that they have to live with until they are 40 and work out it was a visual metaphor. I was told on the day it happened the angel would put a "veil of forgetfullness" over me until I asked for the Holy Spirit again at the age of 28.

3. Rev 13:4 Satan/dragon gave the pope his authority as the text says (and ive been shown) or the Roman Empire/paganism or both? i.e unless my vision of Satan was a symbolic but non literal visual personification/lesson in order to impress the point the papacy is spoken of in Rev 13:4, i.e in the same way Christadelphians claim the Bible is written (with God/Jesus pretending he exists). Even if that was true I am not sure it is possible to use 1 Corin 8 to support it.


No what I was shown was that a pagan idea was giving the pope his authority. The dragon is paganism, that is what gives the pope its authority. My vision was at the papal mass, the very idea which is based on John 6:66 which is an intentional parody of paganism. That is what it means to me when it says "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" I believe I was shown that prophecy and all 350.000 of us were their to worship/adore the papacy who derived his authority from a pagan ritual. The problem is literalism again, it always is. Not really understanding how the Bible is written by parodying this pagan style.

Edited by Mercia2, 15 May 2012 - 10:59 PM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users