| Author | Message | ||
| Patti |
I have to agree with you Valerie, "Obnoxious" is in the eye of the beholder. And people rarely see themselves as being obnoxious. It is always someone else who is. Perhaps if we try to perceive others as God regards us--as righteous and holy as His only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ--then the "obnoxiousness" of others may begin to fade a bit. And I stand on a chair to applaud you on this statement: True Christians say such unloving things because true Christians are also sinners and mess up. We are only perfect in Christ Jesus. Amen and AMEN!!!! We ARE perfect in Christ Jesus, right here and now, by faith. We are perfect ONLY in Christ Jesus. Thank you! The Gospel is a wonderful thing to start off a new year with! God bless, Grace and peace always, Patti | ||
| George |
Was Christ ever obnoxious? Did He ever act in a way as to be perceived that way? Hid He ever use Grace or His power or positiion as an excuse to do what ever He wanted? I don't think you can answer these questions, nor do I think you want to. | ||
| Cindy |
Valerie, I know you are off "saving those babies"!--but I just wanted to second the amen of Patti to your comments in regards to OUR PERFECTION IN CHRIST ALONE! I pray we may all continue to be open and willing for His Spirit lead us each day this new year; to be able to see ourselves in the true light of His Grace; knowing when to speak up and when to remain silent...:-)) Have a good New years Day! I guess you'll be getting paid "time and a half" for working today!? Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Cindy |
George, You asked if Christ was ever obnoxious or acted in a way to be perceived as such... I personally feel He was NOT obnoxious, but living in TRUE REALITY! But... when he called down the woes on the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, I'm sure that THEY felt he was being obnoxious! Look at Luke 11. Jesus was INVITED to be a GUEST at a Pharisee's home, and when Jesus did not first wash before the meal (I think the big ceremonial thing), the Pharisee was "surprised"... Then Jesus starts in on his denunciation (tough love!) and "woes" against the Pharisees, saying they are full of greed and wickedness on the inside, they neglect justice and the love of God, they love places of honor, they are like unmarked graves! And, when an "expert in the Law" speaks up and says, "Teacher, when you say these things, you INSULT us also," Jesus does not apologize, but turns to the "experts", and addresses them! Saying that they load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, they killed the prophets, they have taken away the key to knowledge! I would think the Pharisees and the Experts in the Law thought Jesus was obnoxious, plus much more than that! Also, the many times He would be "in their face" by purposely breaking the Sabbath by doing works; even stating that He WAS WORKING! (John 5:16-18. I guess obnoxiousness can really be percieved differently. I think many of the people listening to Jesus were amazed and excited that he would be so bold as to question the authority of the church leaders! (those who were the truly obnoxious ones with their piousness). How do we as followers of Christ speak out for Him? First, I do not think we can be "Just Like Jesus"... HE WAS UNIQUE! and FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT! He could ALWAYS "say the right thing"... Who else of us could say as Jesus did in John 12:49-50? "...'the Father who sent me commanded me WHAT to say and HOW to say it. I know that His command leads to eternal life. So WHATEVER I SAY IS JUST WHAT THE FATHER HAS TOLD ME TO SAY.'" And also, John 14:31..."The world must learn that I love the Father and that I DO EXACTLY WHAT MY FATHER HAS COMMANDED ME." We imperfectly follow Him... but we are always covered and cleansed by His Perfection Alone. Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
Christ died to save the obnoxious and obscene. NOT to keep them obnoxious and obscene, but to change them by ìhis workmanshipî --ÝîFor we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto GOOD WORKS, which God hath before ordained that WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM.î (NIV Ephesians 2.) Christ also died to save the fornicators and adulterers, but not to keep them in fornication and adultery. He died, as well, to save liars, thieves, haters and murderers. NOT to maintain and protect such unloving behavior, but to change it into loving behavior. Hold your breath while you read what Paul writes to the ìsaintsî and ìbrothersî in "the churchî in Corinth: NIV 1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is SEXUAL IMMORALITY among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A MAN HAS HIS FATHERíS WIFE. 2 And you are PROUD! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the SINFUL nature may be destroyed and HIS SPIRIT SAVED on the day of the Lord. 6 Your BOASTING is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of MALICE and WICKEDNESS, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with SEXUALLY IMMORAL people -- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are IMMORAL, or the GREEDY and SWINDLERS, or IDOLATERS. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is SEXUALLY IMMORAL or GREEDY, an IDOLATER or a SLANDERER, a DRUNKARD or a SWINDLER. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the WICKED man from among you." | ||
| Patti |
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is SEXUALLY IMMORAL or GREEDY, an IDOLATER or a SLANDERER, a DRUNKARD or a SWINDLER. With such a man do not even eat. So....who can we eat with, then? Can we even eat with ourselves? If we are greedy or gossips, then we must be shunned, just as much as someone who is sexually immoral. Will the non-greedy (or unselfish) one among us please raise his/her hand? Will the person who has not spread any negative tidings about someone else in the past week please stand up? The Gospel is: Christ justifies the ungodly. We will always remain dependent upon His infinite mercy (grace) ALONE. Grace and peace always, Patti PS Cindy, thank you for your Gospel-laden words. | ||
| Max |
Hi Patti, ^^So....who can we eat with, then?^^ The Corinthian believers were to eat with each other with but one exception, the wicked man who was to be disfellowed or handed over to Satan. It is extremely important to note, however, that Paul does not say the man who was sleeping with his mother-in-law was not saved. The NIV text note says: "Abandon this sinful man to the devil that he [Satan] may afflict the man as he pleases. This abandonment to Satan was to be accomplished ... by expelling the man from the church... To expel him was to put him out in the devil's territory, severed from any connection with God's people. 'so that the sinful nature may be destroyed.' So that being officially ostracized from the church will cause the man such anguish that he will repent and forsake his wicked way... The person put out of the church may well be a Christian." More later, Max of the Cross | ||
| Max |
Hello again, Patti, Your quote, ìChrist justifies the ungodly,î comes from Romans 4:5. So that I cannot be accused of taking a short clause out of context, letís follow the argument in its context. Paul continues his argument along this line through Romans 4 and 5, then concludes, ìWhat shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We DIED to sin; how can we live in it any longer?î (Romans 6:1.) This last question is rhetorical. The answer is clear from the following verse: We CANNOT live in sin any more because when we ìwere baptized into Christ Jesusî we ìwere baptized into his death.î To this, the NIV text note says, ìSo although baptism is not a means by which we enter into a vital faith relationship with Jesus Christ, it is closely associated with faith. Baptism depicts graphically what happens as a result of the Christianís union with Christ, which comes with faith -- through faith we are united with Christ, just as through our natural birth we are united with Adam. As we fell into sin and became subject to death in father Adam, so we now have died and been raised again with Christ.î (Romans 6:1) Paul continues in Romans 6:6 ìWe know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin -- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.î Now I know, Patti, that you would not want to recognize the beginning of Paulís argument without also recognizing its conclusion. Premise of Paulís argument: Christ justifies the ungodly. Conclusion of Paulís argument: So that we, the ungodly, ìmay live a new lifeî because the old self was crucified and buried with Christ and is now dead to sin. ìShall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!î says -- not Max -- but Paul. What you are really doing here, Patti, is arguing with Paul, not with me. And you are misinterpreting Paul. Nor can you understand and teach others about Paulís argument if you misunderstand and mis-apply it yourself. You cannot appropriately respond to Paulís argument by simply asserting, ìWe will always remain dependent upon His infinite mercy (grace) ALONE.î While this statement by itself is certainly scriptural, it is simply not an exegetically responsible or sound or acceptable way to to interpret Paulís assertion in Romans 4:5 that ìChrist justifies the ungodly.î For not only does Christ instantaneously justify the ungodly, He also instantaneously sanctifies and instantaneously perfects the ungodly. If this were false, then the Scripture of Hebrews would also be false: * ìWe have been made HOLY through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.î Hebrews 10:10. * ìBy one sacrifice he has made PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.î Hebrews 10:14. But Hebrews 10 is no more false than Romans 4. Therefore, all THREE qualities of Christ's once-for-all-time sacrifice apply at once when the true believer accepts Christ as personal Lord and Saviour. S/he is instantaneously: 1. JUSTIFIED in Christ. 2. SANCTIFIED in Christ. 3. PERFECTED (made SINLESS) in Christ. Right at the outset s/he is made into an entirely new creation, transported into eternal life here and now, put into heaven on earth here and now, etc., etc., etc. And yet s/he is still a sinner and will remain a sinner through- out all eternity. A justified, sanctified, and perfected sinner in Christ. Furthermore, ìsinning is what sinners doî is simply an unscriptural and therefore incorrect definition of sin. ìThat which is without faith is sinî is a scriptural and therefore correct definition of sin. The only answer to Christian pilgrimage on the planet is this: "the just shall live by faith." Therefore, faith is the answer, a faith that works, as Martin Luther knew. Luther was a scholar (with a Ph.D. in biblical studies). He respected Paulís Scriptures, respected scholarship (as did Paul), reached appropriate exegetical conclusions, and did not misuse Paul. As Luther repeated over and over in his writings: good works are an INEVITABLE result of justification. There just is no disagreement among Reformation scholars on this point. Justification justifies sinners, not sin. Now hear what Peter had to say about Paulís writings: ìDear friends, since you are looking forward to this [a new heaven and a new earth], make every EFFORT to be found spotless, blame- less and at peace with him [the Lord]. Bear in mind that our Lordís patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to under- stand [by others, NOT by Peter], which ignorant and unstable people DISTORT, as they do other Scriptures, to their own destruction.î God's grace and blessings to you, Patti, Max of the Cross | ||
| Cindy |
Max, Patti, whoever...Is this the key point in this seemingly hard text of Pauls'? In the NIV comment that said "The person put out of the church may well be a Christian." Is it that salvation is not in question, but a discipline for holy living? And yet it just sounds so harsh when it includes the greedy, slanderers, or idolaters! Even drunkards... Something in me wants to think that the drunkard needs to be where he or she can here the love of God preached! And who can possibly know who among us are greedy... or idolatrous in what they put ahead of the supremacy of Jesus in their thoughts and actions? Unforutnately, I fit both of these at times; should I voluntarily admit these and stop felloshipping with the pure, sinless believers? And, then, after expelling this list of people... to not even associate with them!? I'm tired tonight; been up on the Mountain with three snowboarding boys all day; very beautiful sunny day! Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
Cindy, ^^Is it that salvation is not in question, but a discipline for holy living?^^ Absolutely! Even if "the wicked man" who was to be cast out of fellowship was not a Christian, the answer would still be yes. For the reason why he was to be handed over to Satan was "so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." 1 Cor. 5:5. | ||
| Max |
Cindy, ^^And yet it just sounds so harsh when it includes the greedy, slanderers, or idolaters! Even drunkards... Something in me wants to think that the drunkard needs to be where he or she can here the love of God preached!^^ Be very careful with your exegesis, Cindy. For the sexually immoral people, the greedy, swindlers, and idolaters of 1 Cor. 5:9-10 were NOT members of the church. They were "the people of this world" in the surrounding community. With these people the "sanctified Corinthian church brothers" WERE to associate, just as Christ associated with whores, drunks, thieves, etc. They were not to disassociate from unbelievers. "In that case [not associating with unbelievers] you would have to leave this world," Paul writes. Listen to Paul carefully (v. 11): "I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." The meal they were eating was not just any meal, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (5:8). It "symbolizes living the Christian life in holy dedication to God and not gettign involved in such sins as malice and wickedness and INCESTUOUS marriages." (NIV text note.) This issue here is hypocrisy -- both on the part of the incestuous man and the other Corinthian church members who were proudly boasting their freedom in Christ by openly condoning such behavior. "Paul meant that they sould separate from the immoral persons in the church who claimed to be Christian brothers (vv. 10-11)," NIV text note. The issue here is HYPOCRISY. "Calling oneself a Christian while continuing to live an immoral life is reprehensible and degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian has intimate associatioins with someone who does this, the non-christian world may assume that the church approves such immoral, ungodly living [and in fact that was EXACTLY what the "brothers" were doing, approving] and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. Questions could arise concerning the true character of the Christian's own testimony." NIV text note. Max of the Cross | ||
| Patti |
Cindy, I firmly believe that everything spiritual in the Bible can be designated as either law or grace. This passage is definitely a passage of law. The purpose of the law (the only spiritual purpose of it) is to show us our unworthiness and absolute inability to do anything to save ourselves so that we run to Christ for grace--forgiveness and peace with God. Paul was obviously trying to take care of a situation that was causing a great rift in the church. Outside of this context, however, Paul was being a very harsh and unforgiving legalist. There is no grace in this passage--no grace for the persons being referred to, and no grace for the reader. In essence (if one does not consider the context of trying to prevent and heal rifts in one particular congregation), it seems as though Paul is acting like the Pharisees who brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus. There are many other passages, even in Paul's own writings, forbidding us from passing judgment on each other. yet, here he seems to claim that we must do so. The question still remains for us, however, 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'? | ||
| Patti |
The church at Corinth was having a lot of problems. When Paul refers to not eating with others who are openly sinful, I believe he is referring to eating the Lord's supper. He refers to the desecration of this sacrament in I Cor. 11: 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.(!) 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions. As I read it, it sounds as if there were many perversions of the sacraments, of the worship service, of the Gospel in the congregation in Corinth. Paul has a totally different tone with them than with the Romans. Corinth is a church who was perverting the sacred symbols of Christianity. 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 Can this passage be applied universally? Only if the people reading it are likewise perverting the Lord's supper by eating to their fill and to the exclusion of others and getting drunk on the communion wine. Likewise, in the previous passage, if a church is not merely condoning but actually promoting sexual immorality, it must be hammered with the law of God. The law is what shows us the wickedness of our ways, and that is an important role. But the law is not the way of salvation. The only power the law has is the power to reveal our sinfulness to us and make us feel our great need for our Redeemer and Savior, Jesus Christ. | ||
| Max |
^^I firmly believe that everything spiritual in the Bible can be designated as either law or grace.^^ This statement may be believed, but can it be supported by Scripture alone? I think not. In the New Testament, law is not divorced from grace. Rather the Old Testament law is fulfilled by the grace of Christ and brought under its service. Christ reduced all 613 elements of the OT law into one: Thou shalt agape! Thou shalt love (both God and people, including yourself) with unconditional love. Where in the New Testament is this law of love distinguished from or pitted against grace? Nowhere. | ||
| Max |
^^This passage [1 Corinthians 5] is definitely a passage of law.^^ Again, this statement cannot be supported by the text together with its context. The word "law" does not appear. Nowhere does Paul spank them with the law. Nor is any concept of "the law" (used so often by Paul in Romans) ever developed in all the book of 1 Corinthians. To the contrary, all of Paul's talk about behavior of believers is instead based on the gospel backed by the power of the cross of Christ (1 Cor. 1:17) and "the message of the cross" that is "foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor. 1:18). "No, we speak of God's secret wisdom," says Paul (1 Cor. 2:7), a wisdom that cannot be understood by those who understand the law, such as the Jews (1 Cor. 1:22) or the Greeks who "look for wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:22). The only law that can be spoken of here is the law of love written on the hearts of these neonate Christians: For Paul says, "Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly -- mere infants in Christ. I have you milk [from God's breasts], not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealously and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?" (I Cor. 3:1-3.) Paul and his companions present themselves to the Corinthian believers not as men who wield the law of Moses, but rather as servants. "So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God." (1 Cor. 4:1.) | ||
| Max |
^^The purpose of the law (the only spiritual purpose of it) is to show us our unworthiness and absolute inability to do anything to save ourselves so that we run to Christ for grace--forgiveness and peace with God.^^ This statement is obviously incompatable with the only commandment of Christ: Thou shalt love! | ||
| Max |
^^Paul was obviously trying to take care of a situation that was causing a great rift in the church.^^ There simply was no rift, only mutual quarreling. Paul's letter was intended to cause a real rift! He told them to judge one another and especially "the wicked man," and to cast him out. But it was a necessary rift so that righteous harmony could be restored. And then and only then could the rift be closed. | ||
| Max |
^^Paul was being a very harsh and unforgiving legalist.^^ Absolutely no support whatsoever anywhere in the Corinthian epistles or in any of Paul's writings! Paul opens 1 Corinthians with "grace and peace" to the "brothers" in the "church" who were "sanctified in Christ Jesus." And he signs off with, "My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen." "Harsh"? Paul? An "unforgiving legalist?" Never! | ||
| Max |
^^There is no grace in this passage--no grace for the persons being referred to, and no grace for the reader.^^ Absolutely false! Item: Paul said to had the incestuous brother over to Satan "so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." Item: Why would Paul insert an uncharacteristic graceless, legalistic, harsh chapter in a book that is full of grace, anti-legalistic, kind and loving in all the other chapters? Item: Paul writes, "I am with you in spirit." (1 Cor. 5:3.) If he were being harsh, legalistic, graceless and mean-spirit, he could not be with them in spirit. | ||
| Max |
^^It seems as though Paul is acting like the Pharisees who brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus.^^ Only to one who does not understand the passage. |
