| Author | Message | ||
| Max |
^^There are many other passages, even in Paul's own writings, forbidding us from passing judgment on each other.^^ Where? | ||
| Max |
^^If we choose to believe that we must act in the way that Paul describes here, is who among us would be worthy to 'cast the first stone'?^^ Paul is not talking about casting stones, but about spiritual discipline -- in order to SAVE the incestuous brother. And in the process restore peace and sanity and love to the church there. | ||
| Max |
^^When Paul refers to not eating with others who are openly sinful, I believe he is referring to eating the Lord's supper.^^ NIV 1 Cor. 5:8: "Let us keep the Festival...." NIV text note to 1 Cor. 5:8: "'let us keep the Festival.' Keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread (which followed Passover) symbolizes living the Christian life in holy dedication to God (cf. Ro 12:1-2; 1 Pe 2:5) and not getting involved in such sins as malice and wickedness and incestuous marriages." | ||
| Max |
^^Paul has a totally different tone with them than with the Romans.^^ Scriptural support please? Paul's tone with both the Corinthians and the Romans was the same, and is the same in all his letters. Paul was a diplomat par excellence. He begins and ends both books (Romans and 1 Corinthians) in the same sweet way. He boldly develops his arguments, but never deviates in his loving attitude. | ||
| Max |
^^Of course, Paul has to go in with a message of law and judgment for a church which has grown lazy and careless with the sacred message of the Gospel.^^ As shown above, Paul does NOT present a message of law and judgment at all. He never refers to the law of Moses. His message is the "power of the cross," not the law. Nor had the Corinthian church grown lazy and careless. Instead they were "infant Christians" needing God's breastmilk, not solid food. They had not grown yet hardly at all. In all Paul's writings he never deviates from using the law of Moses on those Jews who are not Christians, but never on true believers. With them Paul always relies on the power of the cross, a message which is foolishness to the Greeks who seek philosophical understanding and "a stumbling block" to the Jews who seek righteousness from the law. | ||
| Max |
^^If a church is not merely condoning but actually promoting sexual immorality, it must be hammered with the law of God.^^ No scriptural support whatsoever. This is purest legalism in that it flatly denies the power of Christ's cross in the life of the believer. | ||
| Max |
^^The law is what shows us the wickedness of our ways.^^ The law may show unbelievers the wickedness of their ways, but it is the Holy Spirit that motivates true believers. | ||
| Patti |
Max, I am not going to argue with you. Just do me a favor and quote me correctly. You quoted me as saying: ^^Paul was being a very harsh and unforgiving legalist.^^ What I actually said was: Outside of this context, however, Paul was being a very harsh and unforgiving legalist. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Context should always be considered. If this passage were applied universally, without considering the context, then what we would have is a case of hard legalism and we should very well expel people from our presence. Legalism has its place, though. And that is to reveal to us our unworthiness and helplessness, to constantly remind us of our need of a Savior. God is a legalist. He demands perfect obedience to all His divine standards. But for sinful humans to be legalistic is not only laughable folly--we who cannot keep the law perfectly demanding that others do--it is also delusion. We delude ourselves into thinking that we can please God with our filthy rags righteousness; in such a case, we fail to recognize our hopeless sinfulness and our full dependence upon the only One Who could and has perfectly fulfilled all of the demands of the law, the One Who offers this perfect righteousness to all who trust in Him and His saving act. Jesus Christ (and He only) is our complete title and fitness for heaven. So, again, I say, let he who is without sin refuse to eat with the greedy, the gossips, and the sexual immoral. We are all hopelessly sinful in ourselves; likewise, we are all deemed perfectly righteous when we are in Christ. No degrees of salvation. We either stand perfect in Christ (by faith alone) or we stand in the filthy rags of our own devising. | ||
| Max |
Hi Patti, I'm glad you're not taking this personally. It's not meant that way. I'm trying to deal strictly with the issues here and to obey "Roberts Rules of Order," so to speak. I'm fully aware that you wrote, ^^Outside of this context, however, Paul was being a very harsh and unforgiving legalist.^^ And I tried to show with observations of the context that the statement was mistaken. I tried to show that nowhere in any of Paul's writings was he ever "being a very harsh and unforgiving legalist." If any "sometimes Paul writes a very harsh and unforgiving legalism" is the argument being made, then it has not been supported with contextual or factual observations. Do you think it has? | ||
| Valm |
I found this quote today while in the laundrymat. It was from a Catholic Digest Oct 2000. The quote was by Frederica Mathewes-Green. It articulates beautifully our commission to witness: "Do you love me enough to tell them?" Christianity is rare among the world religions in containing an explicit command to tell unbelievers the Good News and to urge them to convert. It is an uncomfortable calling..... This obligation to evangelize is perhaps the aspect most resented by those outside the faith, and most neglected by those inside. It is an awkward calling. but it is a command of Jesus, as blunt as the calls to love our enemies and to care for the poor....... | ||
| Max |
^^If this passage were applied universally, without considering the context, then what we would have is a case of hard legalism and we should very well expel people from our presence.^^ I showed with contextual examples that this statement is untrue. * In 1 Corinthians Paul does not refer to the Law of Moses at all till 1 Cor. 9:8-9 where he uses it to defend against charges that he and Barnabas did not have the right to have their food and other physical needs supplied at the church's expense: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain" (quoting Deuteronomy 25:4). * Paul's reason for expelling the incestuous brother was to save his soul, not to stone him to death. His soul was being lost in the midst of the church setting. Also the soul of the Corinthian church was being lost as long as the "baby Christians" in Corinth continued on boasting of their freedom in Christ that allowed them -- they thought -- to countenance such incestuous behavior. And I also showed from three examples ("items") internal to the chapter that Paul could not possibly have been applying the Law of Moses here. But the most important consideration is that Paul simply does not apply the law in this chapter. So even if all the rest of 1 Corinthians had been lost and only Chapter 5 preserved, one would be extremely hard pressed to find support for the argument that it is a legalistic passage. For if Paul were being legalistic here, then he would have HAD to refer to the law in some way, shape or form. That's what legalism is: You break the law, you get punished. You keep the law, you get saved. There simply is no way to rescue any "legalistic pericope" thesis. And it's better to just drop it and learn something. | ||
| Max |
^^Legalism has its place, though. And that is to reveal to us our unworthiness and helplessness, to constantly remind us of our need of a Savior.^^ If instead you had written "The Law of Moses has its place...." Then you would have an argument. But, seeing your next sentence, perhaps this is what you meant." | ||
| Max |
^^God is a legalist. He demands perfect obedience to all His divine standards.^^ Oops! Don't even go there, Patti! 1. This is sheer White-ism and "historic Adventism" in its most extreme formulation. 2. It is a pitting of God the Father (Great EGWhite-Haired, EGWhite-Bearded Ultra-Pharisee in the Sky) -- assuming that's what you meant by use of the term "God" -- against God the Son (the pathetic underling, not God, only the Son, an archangel, who came to earth to keep the law and having kept it, then shows us by his example that we too can keep it by following him. 3. It denies the trinity. Here's the falsehood: God the Father is the only true God. God the Son is not God at all. God the Holy Spirit doesn't even exist and therefore, on that subject, "Silence is golden" (EGW). And here's the truth: A. All three Persons of the godhead exist fully and completely and at all times in the Person of GOD THE SON. (Save only, PERHAPS, for the brief period of which Jesus spoke when he cried out, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" There is a deep mystery here that may never be fully revealed this side of the Second Coming.) B. All three Persons of the godhead exist fully and completely and at all times in the Person of GOD THE FATHER. B. All three Persons of the godhead exist fully and completely and at all times in the Person of GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT. The false view is White-ism, "historic Adventism" and virulent nonsense, Patti. It's presence from time to time on this website is no more than a holdover from our SDA years. Forget it. Purge it from your thinking. It's just not worth defending. And it cannot be transformed into grace-based theology. As the old saying goes, You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. | ||
| Max |
^^So, again, I say, let he who is without sin refuse to eat with the greedy, the gossips, and the sexual immoral.^^ That is not what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 5. And you cannot support this language with Scripture. So why not drop it? Your argument cannot be rescued. Forget it. You can't argue with Paul and win. | ||
| Max |
^^But for sinful humans to be legalistic is not only laughable folly--we who cannot keep the law perfectly demanding that others do--it is also delusion. We delude ourselves into thinking that we can please God with our filthy rags righteousness; in such a case, we fail to recognize our hopeless sinfulness and our full dependence upon the only One Who could and has perfectly fulfilled all of the demands of the law, the One Who offers this perfect righteousness to all who trust in Him and His saving act. Jesus Christ (and He only) is our complete title and fitness for heaven.^^ Indeed, and bless you, Patti. Max of the Cross | ||
| Cindy |
Max and Patti, Morning! Wish I didn't have to head out to work soon... but I do want to say that I think the POWER for CONTINUED "right" living IS in the message of the Cross! The Holy Spirit is the one who motivates us...For believers, he points us always to Jesus--the ultimate law of Love! Now that Christ has come we are no longer under the "supervision" of the Mosaic Law. (Galations 3) It was only a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ! He embodies everything we need... and we can REST in Him! Believing in Him, His Spirit will be our guide. And all references to holy living for believers must always go back to this glorious news of "Christ crucified for us"! How can we turn our backs (in thought and action) on such a great salvation!? Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Patti |
^^God is a legalist. He demands perfect obedience to all His divine standards.^^ Max wrote: Oops! Don't even go there, Patti! Now, I have to admit I am frankly shocked at your rebuke here. That statement is quite orthodox Christianity. Do you mean to tell me that you do not believe that God demands perfect obedience? Do you think that we can be accepted by God with less than perfection? If God could have accepted less than perfection, then why would He have turned Adam and Eve out of His presence? After all, their mistake was only a small one. And the Bible admits that Eve was deceived. And why would Christ have had to live and die on this earth for our redemption, if God could have merely forgiven Adam and Eve? Because sin is consumed in the presence of God. God had to turn Adam and Eve out of His presence or they would have been instantly destroyed. When Jesus took on our sin at Calvary, His mortal flesh was destroyed. Sin and God CANNOT coexist. As for this being an SDA doctrine, you will never hear anything like what I have said come out of traditional SDAism. For the most part, they believe that the human flesh of Jesus Christ was sinful, that Jesus was actually God and sinful at the same time. And they do not believe that God demands perfect obedience. Most actually believe that they are keeping God's law perfectly and that God is pleased with their paltry attempts at obedience! They have to downplay original sin so that humanity is not totally depraved, and they have to degrade the perfect humanity of Christ by making Him have sinful tendencies just as we do. God demands a life perfect obedience. Nothing less will allow us to be reconciled to God. But the only way we can have this life of perfect obedience is by faith in the work that has already been accomplished for us in the life of Jesus Christ. Many people, SDAs and Catholics included, recognize the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ in His death. But most Christians (according to my limited and biased observation) fail to see the real power of the Gospel. The dying of Jesus Christ forgives us for our sin. It wipes the slate clean. However, God demands a life of good works, of perfect obedience. Forgiven, we stand, at best, neutral with God. We must have a positive obedience, a life in perfect harmony with all of God's standards, in order to allow us to be adopted as sons and daughters of God. Legalistic Christianity (cults as well as all non-Christian religions) acknowledge this and enumerate all manner of standards and formulas by which man can attain perfection, and, thus, acceptance with God. They acknowledge the negative side of the Gospel (that is, that our sins are negated because of the death of Christ) but they miss the real power of the Gospel, the positive aspect: Christ is our Substitute in life as well as in death! His life of perfect obedience becomes ours when we believe in Him. This is the wedding garment, the robe of righteousness without which no one will "see" (or enter) the Kingdom of heaven. Christ is our righteousness. His perfect law-keeping is imputed to whomever trusts in Him. His perfect character is credited to our account when we believe in Him. In this life, we are righteous only by faith, not in reality. Our righteousness is laid up in heaven, where it cannot be tainted by sin or corrupted by human hands. It is finished, secured, perfected, accomplished. And it is credited to us when we believe that the historic and unrepeatable work of Jesus Christ was indeed totally sufficient for our full salvation. "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness." On HIS blood--the forgiveness of sin--and HIS righteousness--His perfect life. This is the power of the Gospel. Christ justifies the ungodly. Not because of what they do, but because of God's great mercy (grace) to us for the sake of the doing and dying of Jesus Christ. To Him be all honor and glory forever. Amen. | ||
| Max |
The Father God demands the perfect obedience of the Son God, but He is not a legalist. | ||
| Allenette |
IF, and I capitalize IF, God is our father figure on earth, He's also dysfunctional in His demands. Cant figure out how come on one hand he's so loving and forgiving and on the other hand he's so demanding. Would make for some really screwed up progeny IMHO, and looks like it HAS,even on here ;-) | ||
| Patti |
But that is the beauty of the Gospel, Allenette. He demands perfect obedience, but He has also provided it for all who believe in Him. Jesus Christ is our Substitute in life and in death. In Him, we have a life of perfect obedience that is, which we in our sinful flesh could never produce, credited to us for the sake of the doing and dying of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is the perfect marriage of righteousness and mercy. In Romans we are told that this is the way that God could be just and still justify the ungodly, by crediting to our account the perfect life and atoning death of Jesus Christ. |
