 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/14/2001 10:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | So, 1way, how's the body count? I mean, how effective do you find your version of God's strategy? You know: condemning everybody so they become Christians. I think I can show that you do not trust that I am a Christian, and you clearly condemn me at many points,...so why didn't it work? God didn't elect me? I am just to beligerant? What's your take? You treat sinners like the sh*t that you think they are, you "abhor" them and then they coming running to the alter, right? So who's at the alter lately? Maybe God had a strategy somewhat different that the one you support. Somthing you maybe overlooked in Mr. I's reference to the woman caught in adultery....
Just a pagan thought from a rebuked heathen....
"Give no offense to Jews or Greeks, or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ."
(Obscure marginal note: "er, unless you are a dispensationalist....")
1 Cor. 10:32--11:1.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
 |
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/14/2001 3:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes – What is this, spitefully mean day? The subjectivity and vial tone speaks volumes. As to quote:
So, 1way, how's the body count? I mean, how effective do you find your version of God's strategy? You know: condemning everybody so they become Christians.
That’s not my approach. I consider it more like speaking the truth in love. It’s the truth that sets us free, not trying to be nicer than God. As to quote:
I think I can show that you do not trust that I am a Christian, and you clearly condemn me at many points,...so why didn't it work?
You may be paranoid and overly defensive, but that is besides the point. It is good and loving to discern and question and judge that which is unGodly in hopes in hopes of correction. I don’t think your always wrong and presenting something that is not Godly. That doesn’t mean that I think you unsaved, there are a lot of other Christians who are more unGodly than you or I. So it’s not about me trying to suggest that people are hell bound like some man made scare tactic. The gospel message of eternal damnation is arguably the most frightful message imaginable. So if I am faithful to the gospel message, some fright may be involved. As to apparent ineffectiveness, temporal or eternal, if I am obeying God’s ways for sharing His truth, and others don’t respond appropriately to His truth, then so be it, not my bad.
As to quote:
God didn't elect me? I am just to belligerent? What's your take? You treat sinners like the sh*t that you think they are, you "abhor" them and then they coming running to the alter, right?
I think everyone is elect, God has love and forgiveness for everyone whosoever accepts God’s free gift of salvation. I hope you are sincerely saved and I haven’t given your personal claim to salvation a second thought, let alone your belligerence against it. I doubt your understanding of God, not that you are saved or not. And I don’t treat anyone like your slanderous description. I do abhor all who are evil. It is true that God’s form of evangelism does seem to work the best when the unsaved is brought to a personal low and humbling point. Self pride is an underrated evil reality. It’s almost the universal testimony of saints that they came to faith in God when they were humbled to their awful depravity, and through their failure God’s message of love and hope and forgiveness they finally sought salvation through their need to get things right with God. Personal condemnation of the law is the Godly first step in evangelism. As to quote:
Maybe God had a strategy somewhat different that the one you support. Something you maybe overlooked in Mr. I's reference to the woman caught in adultery....
Maybe you will address the scripture that I provide as the foundation of my points. I said that God alone has the right to forgive capitol offenders like that woman no matter what the true extent was of her wrongdoing was, that is a prerogative clearly demonstrated even in the OT with David and others. (The silence of a response to that point is still echoing)
So I fail to see your point. Actually, I don’t think you really made a point except that I might be wrong about something. If you find a something wrong with what I actually said about the adulterous young woman, then by all means I encourage you to share it, how else will we learn the truth instead of just your overt personal animosity.
So the most you’ve done concerning dispensational thought, is to ask some insincere questions, and create your own perverted sexually oriented dispensational scheme while otherwise jettisoning what God teaches about dispensational thought. Give it a rest, you are living in the dispensation of grace that was given to Paul to give to us and you don’t even care to understand nor accept it.
Thanks for demonstrating the kind of loving caring understanding you offer those who disagree with your theology. For clarity of heartfelt conviction, who could doubt your sincerity or the “message” conveyed, you get a 10!
Edited by - 1way on 12/14/2001 8:43:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/14/2001 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Page-ten definitely wan't "kinder and gentler. Not my stuff...
Here's another topic. One very current!
How do you all see things for those around you who have or might loose jobs, who have kids to raise and perhaps are alone in doing it?
Christmas is coming; and for them, not only are ends hard to meet, but they would love to give to their kids too.
But we don't know whether times will get tougher or not either.
How's life in America? | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/14/2001 4:55 PM (GMT -6) | | 1Way said:quote:
I said that God alone has the right to forgive capitol offenders like that woman no matter what the true extent was of her wrongdoing was, that is a prerogative clearly demonstrated even in the OT with David and others.
At the time of Pentacost Christ gave man the power to forgive sins.
"21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”"(John 20.21-23)
Unless I am reading this wrong, God gave us the right to forgive sin; even capitol offenses. Christ never specified that we could forgive sins, but only non-capitol offenses.
MrI. :|
________________________________________
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice,
Rising in the morning,
It will be counted a curse to him. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/14/2001 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Mr Indifference – As to quote:
At the time of Pentacost Christ gave man the power to forgive sins.
"21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”"(John 20.21-23)
Unless I am reading this wrong, God gave us the right to forgive sin; even capitol offenses. Christ never specified that we could forgive sins, but only non-capitol offenses.
You set that one up very well. God did not start teaching forgiveness in John 20, that would mean that unforgiveness was the rule prior to it, and that is just plain wrong. Second, you are not dealing with my OT example of David. God alone forgave capitol punishment for a select few as demonstrated with David. God continued to uphold the death penalty even though He spared some people from it, only God can do that. So either acknowledge that reality, or argue against it as it applies to the adulterous young woman as I have suggested.
As to our ability to forgive capitol offenses, there is no scripture what so ever to back that up. As I have shown you, Jesus supported the death penalty in Mt 15. As to forgiveness, we are to forgive offenses and sins that are inflicted against us. We can’t forgive anyone else’s moral debts. I think that God’s commandments of capitol offense show that such offenses are not just against man, but are also against God and His redemptive ways, and deserve the death penalty accordingly. I have no problem with a woman forgiving a man that raped her, but he should be put to death. The only person who could forgive a murderer for the crime of murder, is the person who is no longer living, so it is impossible for a person to forgive a murderer, except for God. In every case of a capitol offense, God has the right to forgive, and the right to punish with righteous punishment.
If we think that we can and should forgive capitol offenders, then the natural response would be to not punish all those who are forgiven of their crime. That is what forgiveness means, it’s fundamentally a legal term that means the debt is wiped clean. And I’m quite sure that even you are not willing to let every capitol offender go unpunished just because they “say” they are sorry and “someone” is willing to forgive them. The severity of these sorts of crimes are so destructive and unGodly, that being put to death is the best and most redemptive and life preserving answer. The death penalty is at the heart of the gospel message, as well as forgiveness, yet you don’t seem to understand either very well. I hope this discussion helps.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/14/2001 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | POW – Chuckles, kinder gentler. Is that why you have an aversion to God’s word? 
Merry Christmas, seasons greetings, blessings to all God’s children, happy New Year, joy and glad tidings, Good will to all generally speaking, yaaahh!!!
Now back to the somber inner peace issues of real forgiveness and non-hypocritical love.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/14/2001 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | | I WAY: The death penalty is at the heart of the gospel message, as well as forgiveness, yet you don’t seem to understand either very well. I hope this discussion helps.
Doc: I have my doubts about the helpfulness of THIS discussion.
I agree that the death penalty is at the heart of the Gospel... for Jesus DIED for OUR SIN.
And, like Forest Gump, "that's all I have to say about THAT."
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/15/2001 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | Doc – Thanks for your personal opinion. However, less subjectivism and more biblical argumentation might be more productive from you and yours. For example, you might actually pick a an argument or a scriptural interpretation so that someone’s correction might become possible. I find clarity of understanding forgiveness and the death penalty to be extremely helpful in understanding salvation and God and His ways. To be confused on such critical issues should dramatically effect one’s life and salvation. Share the clarity to the glory of God! | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/15/2001 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | |
Doc said:quote:
I agree that the death penalty is at the heart of the Gospel... for Jesus DIED for OUR SIN.
Well Doc... I think you just nailed it again. Thank you.
MrI. :|
________________________________________
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice,
Rising in the morning,
It will be counted a curse to him. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/15/2001 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | As if anyone here disagrees that Jesus died for our sins.
Edited by - 1way on 12/16/2001 03:40:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wislawa
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 12/15/2001 10:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As if anyone here disagrees that Jesus died for our sins.
Edited by - 1way on 12/16/2001 03:40:07 AM
Okay Christ died, and his death [size 6]somehow[/size 6] saves us. i have problems with the 'for sin' part unless it is understood in a very particular way. To say that this death penalty is wired into what Christianity is all about has been used to justify our one personal vindictive uses of death penalties that we force on others. This is more dangerous than it may first appear but i think that the crusades, burnings of herritics, religous wars, national wars between surface christian nations like the one we're in now, all have connections with this view of the attonement. I'm not saying the are a sole cause, but i am saying that this uderstanding is used to cover our own butts and justify our own will-to-murder. we need to be carefull here folks, it sounds almost second nature to say that this is Christianity in a nutshell, but look at what we're really saying here. yikes.
-Wislawa
for love is strong as death,
passion fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
a raging flame [shalhevet-Yah = the very fire of Yah(weh)].
Canticles 8:6
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/16/2001 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Wislawa - Either perversion of the gospel is equally evil. The death penalty and forgiveness of sin is absolutely at the heart of the gospel unto salvation. The gospel of salvation does not support murderous crusades any more than it supports salvation raped of justice and wrath against evil.
Christianity in a nutshell is understood from the whole counsel of the word of God (Luke 4:4) without violating any part of it. It all counts, every aspect from love and grace to wrath and condemnation, and all in between. The scary part is when man decides to use selective hearing. quote:
Matthew 7:26 (NKJV) “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:
27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
2 Timothy 4:3 (NKJV) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
What is scary is violation and opposition of the message of God’s word. As to quote:
Okay Christ died, and his death somehow saves us. i have problems with the 'for sin' part unless it is understood in a very particular way.
It should be understood according to God’s word. Anything less would be unscriptural. The devil is one who perverts and strives against what is Godly, it is no surprise that many people do evil condemnable things including doing evil in the name of God. Wickedness is obviously the problem, not the gospel. I almost can't believe I have to stick up for the gospel  (here).
Edited by - 1way on 12/21/2001 01:25:31 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/21/2001 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | 1 Way: I almost can't believe I have to stick up for the gospel (here).
Doc: We're glad SOMEONE around here cares about the Bible!
Little question: 1WAY, did YOU ever slander your parents growing up? Did YOU ever have sex with someone outside of marriage? What I'm wondering is -- would you (like the majority of us) be DEAD right now if the capital punishment regime, as you seem to recommend it, were in place? And even if YOU haven't broken these laws, do you think it would be good if the rest of us were dead? Do you think we should NOW be put to death (since, after all, there is no time limit placed on offenses in the OT)?
Just curious
Doc
Edited by - 1way on 12/21/2001 01:25:31 AM
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/21/2001 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc – As to quote:
What I'm wondering is -- would you (like the majority of us) be DEAD right now if the capital punishment regime, as you seem to recommend it, were in place? And even if YOU haven't broken these laws, do you think it would be good if the rest of us were dead? Do you think we should NOW be put to death (since, after all, there is no time limit placed on offenses in the OT)?
God forbade the death penalty at one significant point in history, and by that and the NT teaching about Governmental control, we know that the death penalty is not retro unless the law had been in force the entire time. There is no teaching in God’s word about creating a new law and then convicting previous criminals, that would be unjust.
What is the ratio today in America? I wish I had the hard facts, but I think the reported murder rate is somewhere in the several 10,000’s per year. And America puts to death about what, 2 or 3 people on average per year with the death penalty. The death penalty is as I have been suggesting, redemptive, society works best under Godly rule, and when the most unjust and immoral crimes happen and the government does not respond righteously and with justice, the people are emboldened to be even more evil. Conversely, the more Godly the government rules, the more the people rejoice. quote:
Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked [man] rules, the people groan.
Psalms 89:14 Righteousness and justice [are] the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.
Proverbs 21:3 To do righteousness and justice [Is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
God cares deeply about justice and righteousness which always teaches the opposition to all that is evil and sinful and destructive. God set the death penalty for capitol offenses in his commandments for justice (criminal code). Israel was right whenever they honored them, and so are we today. If God did away with the death penalty, why is it still at the heart of evangelism and the gospel message? Isn’t that enough consistency to make believers realize that maybe, just maybe God’s commandment of capitol punishment is still valid today, and that governments serve best when they obey God’s criminal code of justice? quote:
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
... 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
(All scripture quoted from the NKJV)
To the extent that the government makes evil criminals fearful, it’s to that extent that they are being God’s minister to us for good executing wrath on the evil criminal. And baring the sword not in vein is a threat of capitol punishment, one doesn’t spank with a sword, one threatens mortal life with a sword. God didn’t improve His sense of criminal justice from the OT to the NT, and no where did He undo His criminal code of justice, it is still commanded for us to obey today.
America was founded largely on Christian principles most of which come from the Bible, yet because of evil people, America has been moving away from our foundation and into terrible wickedness like legalizing abortion and effectively legalizing adultery. When Jesus comes and rules the world, do you think that abortion and adultery and homosexuality and rape, etc., will be not punished by death? There’s not a righteous chance.
I pray that ignorance and indifference to God’s way of criminal justice be replaced with a righteous desire to understand and support the truth in these matters.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/21/2001 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Over the past month or so, I have heard several that I, and others, have a total disregard for what the bible says. These references have been contained in the threads that deal with “God’s Judgment.” This “disregard” is in the context of supposedly not paying attention to what is being said in the OT and letting NT references override those of the OT. I hope to address one aspect of this. I am not a scholar, so I may need some help filling in some of the blanks.
When it comes to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, He never said anything that had not already been said in the Old Testament scriptures. Also he never removed or denounced anything in scripture. I would argue instead, that He took principles and laws from the Old Testament and both restated and reapplied them.
In Genesis 1.28, God said to the newly created man “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it”. From what I can tell, this was the first commandment that God made to man. Man was put in a position to rule over the earth, but he didn’t always want to do this. Humanity kept letting itself get sidetracked. When we look at life in the 21st Century, we think that that commandment no longer applies. In Matthew 28.18-20 “Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”” In this passage Christ took the verse that said “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” and restated it as “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.” The commandment as stated in Genesis 1.28 is a commandment for all times. Jesus did not destroy it as a commandment, but instead restated it and reapplied it in a way that was not in its original context.
In Exodus 20, God gives the people of Israel the Ten Commandments. I will not bother listing them off to you for you should know them or be able to look them up yourself. Well anyway, these were the basis of how the Israelites were supposed to live their lives and the backbone for the rest of the Torah. In Mark 12.29-31 Jesus said “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Yet again Jesus took a set of commandments in the OT and restated and reapplied them in a new context in the NT.
Before I go on, I would like to direct you to one thing that should be obvious, but I question whether most people put this into what I believe to be its correct context. When you look at the Law, it is written in such a way that it addresses the nation of Israel as a whole. It is as much of a political document as it is a religious document. It is meant to be the backbone of the legal structure of the nation of Israel just as much as the backbone of Judaism. It was written for a physical oriented kingdom. The Gospel of the New Testament on the other hand tries to remove the emphasis from the physical and put it on the spiritual. It seems to put more importance on each individual’s decisions and lifestyles while it de-emphasizes the group.
The Torah contains all the various rules and regulations on how the Israelites were to live their lives and how to worship God. It dealt with Israel as a nation instead of individuals. God set up a system of “Capitol Punishment” as a tool to weed out the corruption that would sprout up within the body of the nation of Israel. The New Testament, instead of seeing the body as being an individual nation, sees the body as being a group of individuals. Everything became internalized. We all know the verses where Jesus says that if one thinks malicious thoughts against ones neighbors that it is the same as killing them…Well this is the internalization of the law. Instead of rooting out corrupt individuals in the nation, we are to individually root out the corruption that each of us individually harbor in our hearts and in our lives. I believe that Jesus took the emphasis off of the corporate death penalty and put it on the individual cleansing of our lives.
As far as I can tell, by taking this perspective I am not changing what the bible says, but instead seeing a truth that Christ was trying to show the church. There is probably much more that I am missing, but I think you have the gist of my argument. Am I way off base here?
MrI. :|
________________________________________
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice,
Rising in the morning,
It will be counted a curse to him. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/21/2001 11:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Mr I – As to quote:
I am not a scholar, so I may need some help filling in some of the blanks.
When it comes to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, He never said anything that had not already been said in the Old Testament scriptures. Also he never removed or denounced anything in scripture. I would argue instead, that He took principles and laws from the Old Testament and both restated and reapplied them.
I agree except for one thing, Jesus did teach new things, both in the previous dispensation and in ours. But I agree that Jesus mostly straightened out man made problems and updated explanations, He did not set up a whole new dispensation until He did that with Paul. The following seems to constitute new teachings. quote:
John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Before God’s commandments was the standard of love, but now the new teaching is that Jesus is a standard of God’s love. But I agree that this is inline with the old, yet at the same time, it’s a new teaching. Also. quote:
Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles----
2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,
11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Perhaps you were only thinking of Christ’s own personal words as remembered and recorded about His Earthly ministry in the gospel’s and early acts, but I believe it was Jesus who revealed our current dispensation to Paul and the mysteries associated to it. Also, if we say that nothing much has changed, no new teaching has been created, then I have a hard time understanding the following. quote:
Romans 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation [has come] to the Gentiles.
12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Paul is emphatic that the new relationship that God is creating with the world that is characterized by the dispensation of grace, is designed to make Israel jealous and want to return back to God! The teaching of the dispensation of Grace is the essence that should make every non-Christian Jew jealous for God. That is a wonderful evangelism strategy, God really loves Israel and wants her back. Lastly, if you assume a dispensational approach to bible understanding, God’s prophetic program is one seamless unified scheme, except for the dispensation of Grace. We are living in a parenthesis of exception to God’s prophetic plans. The end times was starting to happen in the NT times, that is until Israel just would not be God’s national people of faith. So they got cut off, and so did the prophetic plans that God had for them in the latter times. So, Jesus gave a prophesy that did not come true. quote:
Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Jesus would end up leaving them, and teaching about His grand second coming. Jesus did not return as He said He would. He changed plans so that is a new teaching, and a reversed teaching, even within the NT. Here’s another new teaching. quote:
Romans 11:28 Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers.
I hope this helps. I’ll get to the rest of your post latter. Thanks for the response.
Edited by - 1way on 12/22/2001 04:05:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/22/2001 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Mr I – As to Gen 1.28 and Matth 28.18-20, you said. quote:
The commandment as stated in Genesis 1.28 is a commandment for all times. Jesus did not destroy it as a commandment, but instead restated it and reapplied it in a way that was not in its original context.
That is unfounded speculative nonsense. I agree that the two passages have different contexts, but to say that it is a restatement and reapplication is without support except for your apparent wishful thinking. Your explanation attacks the right place of context and I find your willingness to do so in order to build up your own imaginations is very risky business. Let’s see, was the deluge the same idea as being filled with the HS, only in a different context? Umm, if I say it was, then sure, same teaching, it’s just out of context.
Not a good idea. But I understand it’s just a start as you try to alleviate God from the death penalty as being a current teaching.
As to quote:
In Exodus 20, God gives the people of Israel the Ten Commandments. I will not bother listing them off to you for you should know them or be able to look them up yourself. Well anyway, these were the basis of how the Israelites were supposed to live their lives and the backbone for the rest of the Torah. In Mark 12.29-31 Jesus said “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Yet again Jesus took a set of commandments in the OT and restated and reapplied them in a new context in the NT.
I recently did a fun and I believe unique study on verses that say the same thing in Mark 12.29-31. It’s an OT teaching with plenty of references. In fact, this topic may have been one of my more favorite and bible loaded studies. Please take some time and examine it at the following web link.
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=360
Notably, the two parts to Jesus’ teaching is found as far back as Deut 4 and 6, and the second part about the neighbor was had one OT direct reference that I found back in Lev 19.18. I might be persuaded to post it here, but redoing the formatting would take some reworking.
Not a different teaching, not a different application.
As to quote:
Before I go on, I would like to direct you to one thing that should be obvious, but I question whether most people put this into what I believe to be its correct context. When you look at the Law, it is written in such a way that it addresses the nation of Israel as a whole. It is as much of a political document as it is a religious document. It is meant to be the backbone of the legal structure of the nation of Israel just as much as the backbone of Judaism. It was written for a physical oriented kingdom. The Gospel of the New Testament on the other hand tries to remove the emphasis from the physical and put it on the spiritual. It seems to put more importance on each individual’s decisions and lifestyles while it de-emphasizes the group.
While I very much appreciate the fact that you are trying to make general sense of the differences between the OT and some of the NT teachings about the law, your conclusion is subjective and seems to have little clear biblical support. In the OT, people were saved on an individual basis just like we are today. I believe the better explanation about the grouping, went from national Israel to the international world, while the individual basis remained the same, individual and individual.
As to quote:
(1)The Torah contains all the various rules and regulations on how the Israelites were to live their lives and how to worship God. It dealt with Israel as a nation instead of individuals. (2)God set up a system of “Capitol Punishment” as a tool to weed out the corruption that would sprout up within the body of the nation of Israel. (3)The New Testament, instead of seeing the body as being an individual nation, sees the body as being a group of individuals. (4)Everything became internalized. We all know the verses where Jesus says that if one thinks malicious thoughts against ones neighbors that it is the same as killing them…(5)Well this is the internalization of the law. Instead of rooting out corrupt individuals in the nation, we are to individually root out the corruption that each of us individually harbor in our hearts and in our lives. (6)I believe that Jesus took the emphasis off of the corporate death penalty and put it on the individual cleansing of our lives.
1 – I agree that God’s corporate focus was not worldwide as much as it was nation back in the OT, but that does not mean that God it was instead of working with individuals, again, salvation is always an individual relationship.
2 – Let’s be clear here, capitol punishment is part of God’s justice system. It applies to all within the borders of the nation of Israel as their laws included punishment against those who sojourned into their land. Therefore it is wrong to suggest that God’s law was just for Israel, it is applicable for all humanity that obeys God. But in the NT, there is a huge change in how to apply the law especially concerning our life of faith in God. More soon.
3 – Again no, God was group individual then, and He still is now.
4 – The OT teaching was to apply to the individual soul, the law commanded love and honor and faith in God, there can be no greater internalization than that. In the NT, Jesus did emphasize an aspect about the law that the OT did not emphasize. It was about motivation and intent and desire. But this internalization is found in the OT, but simply not as clearly demonstrated. I’m referring to the Mark 12.29-31 teaching as referenced earlier.
5 – That was just an example of the internalization of the law, which as I demonstrated was also taught in the OT.
6 – The corporate and individual dealings represents no effective change in God’s workings with man, except that He is no longer focusing on Israel as His corporate grouping, it’s worldwide now, which if anything, serves to show the expanse of His teachings as being more comprehensive and not just individual.
I believe that on this issue of the law, you may have overlooked an important point. You basically pose that it went from the national to the individual for internalization. The biggest problem with that is that through Paul’s unique writings, we know that the law is not for us to live under it. We are to leave the teaching of the law like leaving a tutor. The law is good if we use it lawfully, which is in judgment against the unsaved world. So, the last thing I want to do is internalize and apply the law to myself unless I am unsaved. However, as to criminal law, that law is directed at the government of the land, which is inherently many people. So I find that we would need to identify God’s criminal justice system, and use it for justice, not as a way of a life of faith, but as civil and criminal law. Gotta go for now. Many blessings, and thanks again for this interesting discussion.
Edited by - 1way on 12/22/2001 3:56:41 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/22/2001 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | I asked 1way: "would you (like the majority of us) be DEAD right now if the capital punishment regime, as you seem to recommend it, were in place? And even if YOU haven't broken these laws, do you think it would be good if the rest of us were dead? Do you think we should NOW be put to death (since, after all, there is no time limit placed on offenses in the OT)?
1 Way answered: God forbade the death penalty at one significant point in history, and by that and the NT teaching about Governmental control, we know that the death penalty is not retro unless the law had been in force the entire time. There is no teaching in God’s word about creating a new law and then convicting previous criminals, that would be unjust.
I comment: You didn't answer my question. WOULD YOU be dead if the capital punishment law of the OT WAS in effect today? And, whether or yes or no, do you think it would be good if you and/or the rest of us HAD BEEN put to death for commiting OT crimes punishable by death, such as slandering parents, fornication or adultery?
Thanks 1 way
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/22/2001 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc – As to quote:
You didn't answer my question.
You didn’t ask “a” question, you asked three questions, and I assumed the questions were contextually linked as to the timing of the enactment of the death penalty. I answered the more fundamental issue in correction to the errant assumption about the application of the death penalty retroactively. But if your intention wasn’t answered, then your right, I did not answer one very good question. Perhaps I am learning how to get you to continue in a conversation that you initiate. You continued by asking. quote:
(1)WOULD YOU be dead if the capital punishment law of the OT WAS in effect today? (2)And, whether or yes or no, do you think it would be good if you and/or the rest of us HAD BEEN put to death for committing OT crimes punishable by death, such as slandering parents, fornication or adultery?
(1) - You mean if it had been in effect during my lifetime and covering times when I might have committed a capitol offense. I don’t think so. I’ve been really consistent in one thing in my entire lifetime, if faced with a life for death situation, I am personally extremely committed to staying alive. Even in America, some crimes still has the threat of punishment by death, and so far, I have kept myself from being guilty of them, which is consistent with my answer. But actually, whether or not I would be guilty or not is hardly the question. It’s whether or not it is a righteous and Godly punishment. Sometimes I get the impression that David, of old testament fame, was a really great guy, a real man of faith, that is of course when he wasn’t committing adultery or murder. That fact is that crime is deterred only by the fear of justice and swift punishment. Conversely, righteousness and civil peace is enhanced by justice.
So, you can’t use the adulterous young woman as an argument against the death penalty because of David being forgiven by God his capitol offenses while the death penalty continued unaltered. And we know that God thought it was a good and effective idea to command the death penalty for capitol offenses and that swift justice rewards and encourages righteous people and punishes and makes fearful evil people.
(2) - After God’s commandment for capital crimes was put into effect, it would be bad for a government to not carry out the just punishment for crimes committed after the law was put into place. If you punish a person for stealing five bucks worth of food, it would be the epitome of injustice to not punish a capitol offender. The severity of the punishment should be commensurate to the severity of the offense. So yes, it would be good to be put to death if the perp was guilty and the law was Godly. I believe that God’s commandments are good and righteous and just, and I would not heed those who would try to make God’s justice into something bad and worthy of doubt and opposition.
Maybe you haven’t had a terribly evil thing happen to you or yours, but if it ever does happen, a lack of justice in response to that tragedy would be a violation (almost) beyond imagination. Usually, the only time morally responsible people would support doing something that is to some extent evil, is when they would like to get away with doing it. That is when people brake down and consider lowering the bar of justice, like in the case of abortion for example. Abortion has support because of sexual immorality and the belief that Christian morality is too restrictive.
Matt 15 shows Jesus use the death penalty to validate His point against violating God’s commandment for manmade traditions. If Jesus assumed that the death penalty was not righteous supposed to be honored above man’s traditions, then his whole point would be false. He tied (honoring parents) and (the death penalty for cursing parents) together on the same footing as a God given commandment. But the people honored their own tradition instead of God’s commandment, making God’s commandment void. I have no reason to doubt Jesus’ conviction about all that. Same with Paul when he supported the death penalty. quote:
Acts 25:11 "For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar."
Don’t you believe that God was right when He commanded against the various capitol offenses as He did? What is your strongest doubt about it, and why? quote:
Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked [man] rules, the people groan.
Psalms 89:14 Righteousness and justice [are] the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.
Proverbs 21:3 To do righteousness and justice [Is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
Justice is good, no?
Edited by - 1way on 12/23/2001 1:08:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/23/2001 2:51 AM (GMT -6) | | So, you're saying that while you personally have never cursed your parents and thus wouldn't be dead now if God had his way and we were still executing children for this offense, it WOULD be a good thing if God DID have his way and all who HAD cursed their parents would have been executed for doing so?
Just trying to get clear.
Thanks
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/23/2001 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc – No, that is not what I am saying. I thought that I was clear that we have to keep the different issues separate and clear. I am not guilty of cursing parents as a capitol crime for two reasons. First and foremost, that law was not in force during my entire lifetime, and second is a reason that I have not really elaborated. It is always wrong to be contributory to wrongdoing. In the NT, we learn very clearly that it is wrong for parents to provoke their children to wrath and unto discouragement. But we should realize that such a teaching was not isolated in the NT, God didn’t get more loving and righteous towards children in the NT after He recovered from His problems of over harshness in the OT. Children deserve to be loved and cared for in the NT as much as in the OT. And parents are just as culpable for wrong doing in the NT and in the OT. Children are under the parents care, yet the older the children get, the more the control and responsibility is carried by that child until they are supposed to be fully in their own “care”. So the point is that if a child curses parents, that offense is not as bad in the case where the parents incited or provoked the child unto cursing the parents.
I would say that in a world that does not respect God and His ways concerning Godly parenting and Godly government, most cases of a child’s cursing the parents would more directly be attributable to the parent’s wrong doings and may be more damning to them than the child’s behavior. I think this reality of the role model and greater responsibility is one of the reason’s why we don’t really hear about the child cursing parents capitol crime being punished. Perhaps the threat of the law was sufficient.
God’s commandments are not given in a contextual vacuum, they are given with no problems added. Mitigating circumstances abrogate unmitigated rulings. For example, what about accidental homicide. One might assume that (all) killing of innocent blood is murder, but that is not the case. When the death is caused by questionable or accidental means, the killer is not guilty of murder and was sent to the city of refuge where they are not put to death and are protected from capitol punishment. God’s justice system is fair and just and good, and should be supported.
Multiple offenses require the consideration of multiple judgments. Here’s another example, suppose a very young and bright OT Jewish child overheard her aunts and uncles joking with her parents about some explicate cursing at her parents. Maybe it was just a joke, but the child incidentally heard the cursing loud and clear. The child remembers what happened and the next week the family gathering happens again and they all gather together to eat, and the child waits for that inevitable quite moment and then abruptly repeats the cursing as she looks right at the parents to enlist the same laughter and camaraderie she witnessed before. In no way is that child guilty of a capitol crime even though she technically demonstrated the crime although without the wrong intention.
As to quote:
... it WOULD be a good thing if God DID have his way and all who HAD cursed their parents would have been executed for doing so?
Not ALL, as I’ve already alluded to, the parents behavior may make them the culpable offender instead of the child. So no, not all who cursed parents is deserving of capitol punishment even if the law was in effect during the offense. Frankly, it boggles the mind to imagine just how evil a child would have to be in order to be so unyieldingly hateful, but if such a child hates so terribly and for no good reason the parents who truly cared and loved the child it’s whole life, then such a thing is certainly terrible, and God seems to think it is worthy of death. God’s way is good and promotes life. Of all capitol crimes, this one is the most difficult for me to understand, except that it seems to be about rejecting life giving love and all that is otherwise best for the child. At the same time, it’s the one I would expect would be the least likely to occur. I have not deeply studied this particular issue. This much I believe with certainty, if God commanded it, then it is a good and righteous commandment. I could speculate about the possibility that this commandment is unique to the nation of Israel under the dispensation of the law, but I believe that comprehensive bible study is the appropriate response.
I missed some rather weighty responses. quote:
Matt 15 shows Jesus use the death penalty to validate His point against violating God’s commandment for manmade traditions.
Jesus had not opposed the death penalty, in fact He used it as a valid support for His argument against man’s traditions that oppose God’s commandments. Along with Paul’s additional support.
Also quote:
Don’t you believe that God was right when He commanded against the various capitol offenses as He did? What is your strongest doubt about it, and why?
Also quote:
Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked [man] rules, the people groan.
Psalms 89:14 Righteousness and justice [are] the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.
Proverbs 21:3 To do righteousness and justice [Is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
quote:
Justice is good, no?
Don’t you think it would be better to do things God’s way? Clarity is good, please help me get there too. You have your questions, I have been asking good questions of you too.
Edited by - 1way on 12/23/2001 10:28:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/24/2001 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Matthew 15:3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 "For God commanded, saying, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
5 "But you say, `Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God" ----
6 `then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 `These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
Acts 25:11 "For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar."
(Quoted from the NKJV)
Merry Christmas, happy holidays. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/1/2002 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | Shucks, I haven’t had a response since sometime last year. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/5/2002 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey! ,,, Hello out there!
 Isn't anyone taking me seriously?
In the Lord,
1way | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/7/2002 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | The following is my response to Semia from the questions and answers forum, in the “What is Before the foundations of the world?” thread.
Semia – As to quote:
It's too bad we don't all live in the same town. I swear if we all got together over a beer or a glass of wine or a cup of coffee, or whatever is agreeable and non-offensive to all, that more progress could be made in ten minutes than happens in a month on this board.
I believe in this board’s productive discussions. The grass often seems greener on the other side. I agree that personal live contact might prove very helpful. But, it is a common misconception that a change in venue would just make things better. As for me, I’d rather be optimistic and positive. Who knows, perhaps in a few years when broadband becomes standardized, small group live video conferencing will make long distance communications even more personal and live.
As to quote:
We need to see each other smile and laugh, so we can actually believe that we're not trying to kill each other.
There’s such a thing as rational fears and phobias. If all you folks really want is productive biblical edification and sharing and learning, then why don’t you stop focusing the negativity and rejection on me, and allow with grace our difference of opinion which is based upon my understanding and faith in the word of God, and promote the intellectual and edifying discussion. (That’s mostly for certain occasions from POW and Modes and the like).
As to quote:
1way, you are right to see that God asks us both to judge and to not judge.
But I don’t believe that. I believe that God always teaches for us to judge. The difference is that He is for Godly judgment and against unGodly judgment. I greatly disagree with Bonhoffer’s ethics, and due to your philosophical signature and profile, I am almost surprised as your appraisal of this outward emphasis of faith. Keyword is somewhat.
As to quote:
He talks about spurious (or bad) judgment-- the kind where we are judging our brother as Jesus asks us not to do; and good judgment--which is always an action.
I find that errant, unfounded and inconsistent with Christian discipline and morality against sin and evil. Jesus teaches against unGodly or unrighteous judgment, such as hypocrisy and judgment (or hatred) without a Godly cause. He teaches us to judge righteously, He even teaches harsh judgment including abhorrence of that which is evil (Rom 12:9) and personal rejectio/shunning.
“Abhorrence”, the more severe “hatred”.
Thanks for the repost of Bonhoffer. I hope you will respond to my arguments even though these are not your words.
(concerning Bonhoffer’s writing)
quote:
If the Holy Scripture insists with great urgency on doing, that is because it wishes to take away from man every possibility of self-justification before God on the basis of his own knowledge of good and evil.
Part of the truth of the knowledge of good and evil, is that God knows it. He set the standard for that which is good and evil. It is Godly to know God’s standard of right and wrong. I am against self justification, unless the self is justified by God. But as to God taking away from our knowledge of good and evil, that seems completely wrong.
God want’s man to grow in his knowledge of God and be transformed into Christ’s likeness, in truth and in deed. Christ is the first fruits of many, meaning that we are part of God’s good fruit, we are good and righteous fruit, we are part and party to God’s goodness and righteousness.
As to quote:
The Bible does not wish man’s own deed to be set side by side with the deed of God, even as a thank-offering or sacrifice, but it sets man entirely within the action of God and subordinates human action to God’s action.
God is the ultimate good, but if God want’s man to be a free willed moral agent, and He desires our love and obedience, He necessarily appreciates our right responses accordingly, and as being our own responses. God sets His standard of righteous out of our capacity concerning salvation alone. He does not neglect the reality of our fruit in Him. All good things come from God, including man’s free will to morally do as we may. Mans actions are his own. It is because of our responsibility of our own actions that we know that God appreciates or judges our life. And we receive rewards for our faithfulness in heaven. If God does as Bon suggested, then eternal rewards are really just God rewarding Himself and man truly gets no rewards even though God teaches that we do.
God is not the only righteous agent, God says that we are His cooworker, certainly not for unrighteousness, but for righteousness and His Godly ways. We share and partake in God’s glory and blessing because of our real obedience and real Godliness that is really part of who we are. I suggest that the following makes no sense if God’s doesn’t respectfully regard our own personal works.
quote:
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God 's field, you are God's building.
...
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.
So Bon seems wrong to suggest quote:
The Bible does not wish man’s own deed to be set side by side with the deed of God,
Because God sets His righteous standard against man’s deeds to either condemn or approve, and it is quite clear that saved man will receive at least some rewards as a result of this comparison and judgment. I honestly hope to be well rewarded in Heaven despite my soul which is heavy in want of God’s ways evidenced in my life.
As to quote:
The error of the Pharisees, therefore, did not lie in their extremely strict insistence on the necessity for action, but rather in their failure to act. ‘They say, and do not do it.’
I say that their error was not just in not acting, it was acting wrong in both deed and truth. If you believe that which is false, then it’s a good thing to not act on such false beliefs. They had false beliefs and they failed to act right. I believe it is wrong to say that their hypocrisy is only concerning action. They didn’t obey the greater aspects of the law. quote:
Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier [matters] of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
These weightier matters are almost purely and certainly primarily matters of the inner man as opposed to outward actions.
As to quote:
When the Bible calls for action, it does not refer a man to his own powers but to Jesus Christ himself.
I attribute all goodness to God, even the goodness He encourages us to do ourselves, but we have capacity to act good or bad, all my actions are my own because of my moral responsibility, even though no goodness exists apart from God.
As to quote:
‘Without me ye can do nothing’ (John 15.5). This sentence is to be taken in its strictest sense. There is really no action without Jesus Christ.
That’s not true because in the strictest sense, the action of sin and evil are set upon Jesus, which is not the case, sin and evil is upon man, not God. As to quote:
All the innumerable different activities which in general assume the appearance of action are, in the judgment of Jesus, as though nothing had been done.
That seems like nonsense and fabrication. God appreciates and longs for our favorable response to Him, and God set’s man as responsible for his actions. His word goes out to man in hopes of a redemptive response, and His word does not return void, God sees our responses.
Bon continues to explain God’s role in all action. quote:
This saying of Jesus demonstrates more clearly than any other saying in the Bible that all action is entirely bound up with Jesus Christ and no clearer distinction can be drawn than this between true action and all kinds of false action.
Confusion abounds. Does he think that sin and evil action is bound up in Christ also? And if all action is bound up in Christ, where does all the so called false action come from?
As to quote:
The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgment.
I totally disagree and find no basis in truth or reality. But he is creative.
As to quote:
‘He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge’ (Jas.4.11). There are two possible attitudes to the law: judgment and action. The two are mutually exclusive.
I disagree, but am somewhat tentative for now. I have just started an interesting discussion with my friend Bob Hill over on his site over this exact issue. If you want, you could check out what has been presented so far. Here is the link.
I say that this passage is about a bad sort of judgment not amoral or right judgment.
Here is the verse in the NKJV.
James 4:11 Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
I suggest that the moral implications might go something like the following.
Don’t speak wrongly of one another, he who speaks wrongfully against and stands in wrongful judgment of a brother, speaks wrongly concerning the law and is in guilty judgment concerning the law. If you judge wrongly which is against the law, then you are not a righteous doer of the law, you are a guilty judge.
About this “judgment” against a brother, Robertson’s word pictures says. quote:
Judgeth. In the sense of harsh judgment as in Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37
I find his comment to be less than obvious and compelling, but I agree with the general sense of it being a wrongful sort of judgment. It is my understanding in John that the context is about hypocritical judgment (=wrongful judgment). And that the Luke passage establishes equity much like the golden rule does. So I agree that this judgment is in the wrong, but not that all judgment is in the wrong, some is righteous and lawful and godly.
Kreeno, is the Greek word for this judgment of a brother.
From the DBL (Dictionary of Biblical Languages, Greek) I got. quote:
3212 (krinoµ): vb.; = DBLHebr 8189, 9149; Str 2919; TDNT 3.921—1. LN 30.75 decide, come to adj. conclusion (1Co 2:2); 2. LN 30.99 prefer, to judge one thing better than another (Ro 14:5); 3. LN 30.108 evaluate, judge based on correctness of something (Ac 4:19; 1Co 10:15); 4. LN 31.1 hold adj. view, have an opinion (Ac 15:19); 5. LN 56.20 make legal decision decide adj. legal question of right or wrong (Jn 18:31; Ac 23:3); 6. LN 56.30 condemn, judge as guilty (Jn 7:51); 7. LN 37.49 rule over people, govern (Lk 22:30)
Now, haven’t yet ruled out all other factors, but I am left thinking that the context can drastically determine the meaning of this word. It appears to be the same word in both cases as per Strongs number, yet one concerns “guilt”, quote:
John 7:51 "Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?"
and another concerns “decided preference” quote:
Romans 14:5 One person esteems [one] day above another; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
. In both of these cases, the tense voice mood is also the same 5719. But I don’t read Greek nor am I a scholar. So from what I can tell, some kreeno is good, some is bad, and some is neutral. And of all the commentator’s I’ve checked, they seem to be rather avoiding an explanation as to what determines the moral implication of the word.
I see the James passage not as a general rule for all occasions, because of the certainty of Christian opposition and judgment and ever rejection in Church discipline and correction and admonitions and correction and rebuking and shunning and so on.
Examine the scope of judgment. Judgment happens at the same instant that you think someone is somehow in the wrong. If you think I am wrong about biblical judgment and you say that we are not supposed to judge, and I say we are, you are judging me as wrong on that matter, even if you don’t voice it. Your judgment is known to you and God. So in my understanding of these passages, judgment itself is not the objection, it’s morally wrong judgment that is the objection.
1way
Edited by - 1way on 01/07/2002 11:17:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 190 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|