The Source of Division
.... In our previous posting, we discussed how the Corinthians had gotten side-tracked in their Christian learning. They were still learning things, but they were no longer looking for the testimony of Jesus in the things they learned. Instead, they'd come to focus on the preachers themselves and their personalities, saying: "I am of Paul", "I am of Apollos", or "I am of Cephas".
.... Now it is particularly astonishing that something like this should happen in Corinth, of all places. Because Paul went on to remind them:
.... "when I came to you . . . I determined not to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified"(1 Corinthians 2:1-2)
.... From the beginning, Jesus was all that Paul ever spoke to them about, and they still missed the point! From the very onset, they were too busy looking at the preachers themselves, and missed out that these men were talking to them about Jesus:
.... "For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake."(2 Corinthians 4:5)
.... After Paul left Corinth, other preachers came, and they, too, had tried to focus on Jesus: .... "Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."(1 Corinthians 15:11)
.... All of these men had focused on Jesus, but somehow the Corinthians kept missing their emphasis! They skipped the part about Jesus and focused on the preachers themselves. Because of this, they were missing the true message and making false distinctions. Divisions followed amont them, and denominations began to form: a point over which Paul would protest earnestly:
.... "For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive?"(1 Corinthians 4:7)
.... In other words Paul is saying, "What is it that Cephas taught you that was different from what I taught you? Or what is it that Apollos said that was different from what I said, so that now you are making these distinctions? For now you are saying, ‘This is the School of Paul; we are the Paulites.’ Or ‘This is the School of Cephas; we’re the Cephasites.’ Or, ‘We are the people of Apollos’?" What did we teach you that was different, so that you’re making such false distinctions?
.... Paul reminded them that those preachers taught them exactly the same things! So in other words, that’s all that Cephas ever preached to them about was Jesus; that’s all that Apollos ever preached about was Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, and they still missed the point! Somehow, they still left Jesus out of it! In fact, Paul would say to them later, when Titus came to them:
.... "Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps?"
(2 Corinthians 12:18)
.... Titus came to them, and that’s all he ever preached to them about was Jesus, and they still missed the point! That’s all they ever had preached to them was Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and they still left Jesus out of it! They caught everything except: "How does this show me Jesus?" Everything except Him! So Paul is telling them now, in 1 Corinthians:.... "I will send Timothy to you, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church."
(1 Corinthians 4:17)
.... Will they listen now?
.... Of course, our point is that maybe we are not so very different from the Corinthians, in the church of today. So please think about that! And we’ll continue this discussion in our next posting.
To proceed to the next lesson, click here Daily Bible Reading: Luke 21
posted by loren at 12:09 AM
19 Comments:
This posting was the point behind the ‘Spiritual test’ from three postings ago. The church of today is very much like the Corinthians.
At it’s heart, Christianity can be summarized in three words: in Christ Jesus.. But basically, the Corinthians were using three other words: ‘as a Christian’ and leaving out the understanding of Jesus Himself, which a true understanding requires.
Or for some in modern times, still another step of degression has occurred. Their three words have now become: ‘it’s the system,’ meaning the church as a social institution that changes according to social mores, rather than resting on the character of Jesus Christ.
Personally, I agree that 'as a Christian' is no longer appropriate for them, much less 'in Christ Jesus'. If they're not really going to follow Christ, they should not call themselves by His name.
By
loren, at 7/28/2005 1:16 AM
"‘It’s the system,’ meaning the church as a social institution that changes according to social mores, rather than resting on the character of Jesus Christ."
Amen!
I interviewed my priest for a course on Pastoral Theology when I was in Bible College. I forget the context and specific question, but his answer has stuck with me ever since:
"Without Jesus, I'm no more than a social worker."
When it comes to "the system" and churches bending with society, you might enjoy the talk I gave a couple weeks back. It's on my blog, titled "Salt and Light". It was a talk born out of the recent legalisation of same-sex mariage up here in Canada, and what our response should be as Christians.
That response is most certainly not "chang[ing] according to social mores"!
By
Gregory, at 7/28/2005 4:39 AM
Forgive me! a capital G for God
By
Bhedr, at 7/28/2005 10:26 PM
Hey Loren,
I'm surprised you have not heard of Calvary Chapel as Dr Martin and the Blue Letter Bible and all comes from them.
By
Bhedr, at 7/28/2005 10:37 PM
Brother you have Labored! i finished it tonight. Phew. I pray men will see this and come to a deeper understanding of who Christ is. My brother has gotten really deep into Hebrew and Greek. I'd like him to see this. I don't know if he can be of help to you. He evangelizes among the Jewish community in Miami Fl.
By
Bhedr, at 7/28/2005 10:54 PM
Hi Brian,
Is this another 'coincidence'? How much of a scholar is your brother in Greek? Please check my entry from last March, listed below (the part entitled 'Greek expert needed'.)
http://pold.blogspot.com/2005/03/musings-for-march-2005_29.html
And his interest in the Jewish community would be perfect, like icing on the cake! Please send him to my blog to see if he's interested!
By
loren, at 7/28/2005 11:04 PM
I will send him the blog. I hope he can be of help. last year he read the whole Bible in Hebrew and Greek.
Trail of Blood can be found by quere. Try Byran Station Baptist Church or just search the title. It is now a free download as much of Ana-Baptist history is now covered up.
By
Bhedr, at 7/28/2005 11:15 PM
May the Love of Christ abound among us.
The pointed observations of the Corinthian Church are more applicable than ever. I have a friend. He is a Roman Catholic, and in his own words will 'Die a Roman Catholic'. He is still searching for 'Truth'...He does not subscribe to many of the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially, in 'Confession' and forgiveness - by a priest. He challenges me mightily with his insights into the 'Protestant World'. One of his BIGGEST 'objections' to 'Protestants' is what he calls the 'Our Pastor' syndrome. We see every day more and more churches following the 'preacher' not 'The Word' or THE CHRIST. It is especially true of televangelists. He points to people like the Bakers, Robert Schuller (at the Crystal Cathedral), and others...where the 'messenger' is 'worshiped' instead of the message. His point is that many 'protestants' are no different than the Catholics that blindly follow the teachings of the Pope.
An in depth study of the Corinthian church and what happened there, is extraoridinarilly relevant for our time, where anyone with cash, can 'evangelize' on TV...The geometric reproduction of 'prosperity preachers' is almost epidemic. How many times have we heard someone say, "My Pastor so and so...says." When what we truly need to hear is, "The Bible says," or "Jesus says."
Keep up the work of the faithful! May God Bless this ministry, and its ministers.
By
Unchained Slave, at 8/01/2005 4:35 AM
Hi Dave,
Your points are searching and accurate, as always. All Christians simply must get their atrtention back to Jesus. I am very glad to have your voice as a part of our project - we need to hear, not just you, but the One you're pointing us to.
By
loren, at 8/01/2005 11:47 AM
Slave, your friend is missing out on a great good and gift from God (and an explicitly biblical one at that cf. John 20:23, James 5:13-16 (where the Greek word for "elders", presbyteroi, is where we get our English word "priest") by rejecting Confession. It's one thing to not "blindly follow the teachings of the Pope". It's another thing to use "searching for truth" as an excuse for rejecting the authority of the Church.
Isn't that, after all, a hallmark of the heresies of the end-times pseudo-church, Loren?
By
Gregory, at 8/03/2005 3:18 PM
Actually there's a series on authority coming up, though probably not till early next year. But since you asked, here's my thoughts:
God alone can forgive sins, so all that a priest or anyone else could ever do is to 'voice' the outcome. In other words, if a priest, or even someone like me, heard a Christian confess their sins to God and sincerely repent, we would know that this person's petition was received by God (based on 1 John 1:9). We could then announce to them that their sins are forgiven -- not that we had the power to forgive, but because we know that God does, and in this case, that He has.
When Jesus says 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven', etc, it really means 'whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven' So we are basically looking at the heavenly outcome to guide us as we 'comment' on such events, here on the earth. Otherwise, we become judges (see Rom 3:4).
Confession of sins has always been a point that I've shaken my head at. Based on Alexandrian manuscripts, James 5:16 would say to confess our 'sins' to one another. But Byzantine manuscripts, and the majority of extant manuscripts, render this passage as 'confess you 'faults' or 'trespasses' to one another. These are two very different meanings, and since it comes to a choice, based on the whole of Scripture, I think that 'faults' offers a more proper sense of our relationship with God.
In other words, let's say you and I had an argument and we were both mad at each other. But then I realized, 'You know what, that was really my fault.' Well, I would have to go and humbly confess my fault to you that the breech in our relationship may be healed. But it is different with sin, which is a larger issue, which God alone can forgive. In support of this conclusion, I would offer Psalm 51:5
Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight-- that You may be found just when You speak, and blameless when You judge."
Every sin is ultimately committed against God, and that is the broader issue. So let's say, in the example I just gave, that I sinned against you, and I repented, but you wouldn't forgive me. Because I repented, God still would. Or let's say I sinned against you and you did forgive me, even though I refused to repent. Would God forgive me anyway, because you have? I argue that He wouldn't. He would want to see me repent as well. So ultimately, even if I have to confess my faults to you, I have to take my sins to God alone. And bless you, but you can't help me there, except to pray for me (as in 2 Tim 2:25).
I think Dave is right that there is far too much 'blind obedience' in the church - far, far, far too much of it. And whether it is right or wrong depends on the motive. If someone is simply a non-conformist it's dangerous. If they couple this with novel teachings, I see a false teacher and a church split coming up. But if they're defending their liberty from the encroachment of a control freak leader, I'm going to grab their hand and pull them out of that church myself!
I go to the two extremes because the points stand out more clearly that way. A proper course of action may depend on where things fall in the spectrum in between.
One last thought on authority. Catholics believe in the authority of the church. Protestants believe in the authority of the Scriptures. I think they're both wrong. I believe all authority is in the Lord Himself:
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
(Matt 28:18)
Jesus, of course, remain head over all things to the church, even to this day. So the proper perspective is that the church should be telling us what the Bible has to say about the Lord. But that is a whole series in itself. I hope these initial thoughts are helpful.
By
loren, at 8/03/2005 5:28 PM
There's a lot there I could reply to, but it would take quite a bit of thought. So I'll come back to the Sacrament of Reconciliation later.
Right now, though, I'll briefly correct your misconception about the Catholic view of authority. We believe in the authority of Christ as administered through the "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. These three have to work in tandem in order to be authoritative in any way, and none can contradict the other. This is because all authority on Heaven and Earth belongs to Christ (Matt 28:18), and He delegated it to His Church--which in turn produced the Scriptures and the Tradition that is binding for believers.
I've never been a fan of blind faith (or, for that matter, "Because I said so" style parenting!), but reading the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, and the actual basis behind them, I came to the conclusion that not only were they more Scripturally sound than anything else I'd heard, they made more use of all of Scripture in a coherent lattice, and were more historically consistent in their application of those doctrines.
And I believe that the Catholic system of Scripture/Tradition/Church is the only one that doesn't break down into subjectivism and relativity.
By
Gregory, at 8/03/2005 11:00 PM
Hi Gregory,
I could go with your three-legged approach, as long as there is a true harmony. Of course, I'm going to lean most heavily on the Scriptural leg of that approach, and I'm going to want to see Jesus as clearly as possible in their conclusions. That's the challenge and the opportunity:
I have nothing against ancient counsels that examined Scriptural questions, and the conclusions they reached. I'm perfectly open to looking at their work. But I do reserve the right to concur with their conclusions, or not. None of their beliefs are binding on me because my faith is in the Lord Himself, and nowhere else.
However, if they made good points that genuinely pointed to the Lord, it would be stupid not to build on their perspective. Because looking to the Lord is my goal as well.
So the challenge (which I guess falls to you) is to present their work in a light that allowed non-Catholics to understand their conclusions, grasp the vision and agree with them. I don't know anyone who would have a problem with that; I believe every true Christian will be drawn closer to Christ when they see Him.
I hope you're right in saying their arguments did not break down into subjectivism and relativity, but Jesus is the only person I know of whom that is true. It could only be true of us if we are genuinely looking for Him in our beliefs. So for now, at least, I am willing to wait and see.
By
loren, at 8/04/2005 12:00 AM
I would love to take up the challenge (this is my goal in my youth ministry, as well--my blog records my attempts to do so to date), but the sum total of Catholic Doctrine is so large, I would request tackling specific topics rather than just giving a systematic presentation. For that, you could always consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church :)
But here (or at Grace for the Wayward Heart, or even, if you want, at my other blog, The Three Nails) I would suggest bringing up topics (or pointing me to threads where those topics have been brought up, perhaps) where you actually don't see how Catholic teaching points to Christ, and I will do my humble best to demonstrate it.
By
Gregory, at 8/04/2005 1:48 PM
Actually I was going to suggest something similar. But if it's you're blog, you should be the one to say which. I know you use Grace for the Wayward Heart for multiple purposes, so whatever is more convenient for you.
By
loren, at 8/04/2005 1:54 PM
GftWH is primarily a Youth Ministry blog, to record the teachings at the YG, further reflections on those teachings, and announcements. Any "apologetic" work I do I would wish to be kept in the comment section, rather than actually starting a new post for it. But at the same time, it would be intriguing to see how such a post might go over with my other readers.
On the other hand 3 Nails is a more open-ended blog, originally set up by a friend of mine to be a place where we can rant about life in a safe way, with the possibility of helping or encouraging other Christians who might be struggling with issues as well. I'm discovering that I'm more of a teacher, and less of a ranter, though, so my rants usually don't sound all that ranty :D
There is a lengthly reply to the recent Gay Marriage issue that legalised it here in Canada that I posted on my blog to someone, but he never bothered to reply. You might enjoy reading that! In the meantime, I'll decide which blog I'll open the discussion in, and let you know!
God bless!
By
Gregory, at 8/04/2005 2:17 PM
I've decided to go with Grace for the Wayward Heart for the discussion forum. Last Sunday there wasn't much of a talk given because there wasn't much attendance (it being a holiday weekend up here).
So I'll substitute the regular teaching post with this, and renew it every so often. Could be fun as more and more people get involved. Thanks for stirring up the idea!
God bless!
By
Gregory, at 8/05/2005 3:04 AM
The open forum is set up now! FYI! Looking forward to any and all discussion it produces!
By
Gregory, at 8/05/2005 4:51 AM
Sounds good, I'll look forward to talking more with you there!
By
loren, at 8/05/2005 1:23 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home