The Ground Of The Church

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I would say that Paul's concept concerning "approval" is well documented in the scriptures (if poorly studied and understood) and I would not presume the reading you've suggested (if you have indeed suggested it.) 2 Tim. 2:15 in particular is a strong parallel with regard to the concept of "approval" reflected in 1 Cor. 11:19.

I think it would be an excellent exercise (which I have not done and cannot fully do at present) to consider what exactly might Paul mean by "approved" (I think 2 Cor. 10:18 is particularly interesting!) but I'm not really seeing this reading I think you have suggested.

I look around this forum, in fact, and I think I can see 1 Cor. 11:19 in action from time to time.

YP,

I understand your point. But, as with any word, someone’s typical usage is not a guarantee of consistent usage.

In any case, my response should be read for what it was. I made a reading based on the idea that the passage has a meaning, and you must then decide that Paul suddenly spent two sentences talking about something other than the rest of his paragraph when he made that statement. I did not say that he could not have done that.

But I often wonder how often we rely on what we have heard from others, or from some study of the consistency of how a word is used, or other such things to paint everything the same. Sort of like the old “when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail” way of thinking. Because the word is used a certain way in other places, it has no option here. I cannot claim that it does not. But the context puts a cloud on that in my mind.

When we look at 2 Cor 15:45, we find a statement about the last Adam. But Paul was not making a statement about transitions in the Trinity. He was answering a question about what kind of body we would have at the resurrection. Part of his answer was to make reference to the change in the physical essence of Christ. Paul did not make a doctrinal statement about Christ becoming the Holy Spirit, but a statement about the change in essence of Christ.

In 1 Cor 11:17-34, Paul is not talking about positive reasons for divisions, or factions. He is pointing at the problems about the divisive way they are meeting, and more specifically when they have their Lord’s Table. Paul does make reference to their divisions as something that “must be” in order to “show which of you have God’s approval” and then says no more about it. He never himself commends any of them as approved. In the midst of this particular paragraph, the common reading verges on nonsense if it is to be understood as a clear statement by Paul in support of some actually being approved by God. He never made any similar statement to any others that I can recall at the moment.

I would agree that to find truth we must often come together with our diversity of understanding and seek guidance. But there is no evidence that the Corinthians did such. Based on Paul’s earlier words, it would appear that they were too busy taking sides rather than joining in a search for truth. No one is shown anything when the ears are shut. In this case, there is something disturbing about this sentence saying what we have commonly believed in the middle of a paragraph, or more accurately the first of three or so paragraphs, on the Lord’s Table and the every man for himself kind of attitude that seemed to be displayed. It is difficult to see anything short of the slow(? maybe rapid?) decline of the church in Corinth with no one paying attention to anyone else but their own faction and their own stomachs.

Still, I do not say that this understanding is superior. I just note that the common understanding is quite uncertain when taken along with the rest of its context. Just like the LC understanding of the verses in 1 Cor 3:1-15, and more specifically 10-15 has been locked in a certain mindset for years, when Don asked about 11:19 in the context of what I had previously written, I could only see a question concerning the validity of any kind of division and the possibility that this verse did give some ground, but only for the purpose of clearing up those divisions. I must say that divisions are problematic. But I’m not sure this verse really says as much about them as we tend to think.

Actually, the biggest problem with divisions in the definition. What is a division (as we talk about them here in this form)? Is it really about names, or groups that represent less than a city? Or is it about acceptance v exclusion. If the latter, then it is probably not the denominations, the non-denominational groups, or the free groups. Instead, inside or outside of any of those groups, it is those who refuse others for less than true heresy or certain gross unrepentant sins. I daresay that while the Baptists may require that you “sign on” to their doctrinal positions to be a “voting member” of the congregation, they generally do not deny anyone admittance or participation in communion for such failure. So how truly divisive are they? At some level no more than the LC who may not require you to follow certain doctrines (at least on paper) but will help you find the door if you do not align yourself with them in most doctrines and practices. Maybe much less than the LC.