Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Orthopraxy - Christian Practice

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2009, 09:46 AM   #1
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
Default Re: Submitted for Your Approval

Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534 View Post
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.
__________________
Mike
I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge
OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 10:43 AM   #2
YP0534
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
Default Re: Submitted for Your Approval

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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.
OK. I follow you.

I agree that the customary reading does seem at least a bit out of place in context.

And I completely agree about hammers and nails, which is altogether too common an approach to scriptural interpretation.

You said it might not be the “right” way to look at this verse.

I only agreed with you.
__________________
Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17
YP0534 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 11:13 AM   #3
Cal
Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
Default Re: Submitted for Your Approval

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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.
One of the ways local ground advocates stack the argument is by their rarefied use of the word division. Paul uses "division" to mean lack of fellowship caused by animosity. LCers take it to mean "not under the same leadership" and "not closely associated."

Hence, they say, only "divisions" caused by time and space (city limits) are permissible. But there is no evidence that the Bible considers two churches of any kind, even the local kind, as a case of any kind of division. That's an LC malapropism of the word division to lend weight to the concept of localism.

Two churches are not divisions of any sort that the Bible speaks to. Associating the Biblical meaning of the word division with the fact of some type of separation between two churches is a misuse of terms. In the LC case, it's a means to validate one eldership per city.

This was fairly typical of the LC approach: Redefine the meaning of words and then use them to make the case, or take a word with two meanings and then use the word as if it always means the same thing while taking advantage of the two meanings to make the case.

Last edited by Cal; 01-05-2009 at 11:29 AM.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2009, 07:58 AM   #4
UntoHim
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,828
Default Re: Submitted for Your Approval

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy View Post
This was fairly typical of the LC approach: Redefine the meaning of words and then use them to make the case, or take a word with two meanings and then use the word as if it always means the same thing while taking advantage of the two meanings to make the case.
I had to re-read, then pray-read this a few times

Although we could never admit it to ourselves (for obvious reasons), all we Local Churchers had to do was look around us, and we could see the many other church movements and ministries that were blessed and "approved" by God far more then the Local Church.

Of course Witness Lee tried to turn the tables by calling his little sect "the remnant who have returned" in a lame attempt to justify the small numbers and lack of significant growth, all the while claiming that God was disapproving of every other Christian group.

While we can't be totally sure of what the apostle Paul meant by "divisions" or "approved" here in 1 Corinthians, if we take his ministry in it's totality, the most likely meaning concerns purity in teaching and practice. By this time the "teachings of the apostles" had apparently been spread far and wide, along with the practices which were based on these teachings. It seems likely that all Christians (newly saved all the way to apostles) were to be held to the standards contained within these teachings.

Whenever a number of Christians get together it is inevitable that some will "fall away" from the established healthy teachings and sound practices. I think what Paul was telling the Corinthians is that the ones that are "approved" are the ones who stick with the healthy teachings and practices. This goes double for the leaders/teachers.

Oh, and by the way, I highly doubt that the "One Church - One city - Oneness-at-any-cost" teaching could be included in "the apostles teachings" category.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 02:08 AM   #5
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 718
Default Re: The Ground Of The Church

IGZY COMMENTS

The two great commandments--love God, love people--tell us plainly where the focus of our hearts should be. When we start getting focused on some ideal, "the church," "oneness," "sanctification," "bringing the Lord back," "the consummation of the ages," "the heavenly vision," whatever, people always tend to become means to the end of that vision, and become expendable. This, too, happened in the LC.

People are never a means to an end. They are the end. They are our mission. If we love God and love people, oneness will not be a problem. You think "practical oneness" deals with your flesh? Try practically loving every single person you meet.

Come to mention, what exactly does "practical oneness" mean? It's a very loaded term, with a lot of LC baggage attached to it. On the other hand, surely Christian oneness should be visible. The Lord prayed that oneness would help the world believe. But what does real oneness look like? Does it mean one set of elders and lockstep Christians? I don't think the Bible tells us that.

…………………………………….

These are some of the brother’s comments that he made in one post.

Everything he said was people-oriented. How rare in the “Local Churches” is such a distillation.


He also shared.

"Oddly, things like 'being saturated with the divine nature' don't enter my mind much anymore, when just a few months ago I still thought that kind of thing was really profound. But, you know, that stuff sounds real deep, but it's really not. You know what is really deep? Having a genuine relationship with God and/or another person. That's where the real and satisfying depth is. I thank God He showed me that."

Let us realize that WN and WL also addressed human relationships strongly, at the end of their ministries, as high as their speakings had been.

http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...ishingBook.pdf for those who would care to peruse their speakings.

Last edited by Indiana; 01-12-2009 at 02:46 AM.
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 06:25 AM   #6
Cal
Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
Default Re: The Ground Of The Church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
www.makingstraightthewayofthelord.com/CherishingBook.pdf for those who would care to peruse their speakings.
Quote:
Minoru said,

You know, I was born an icy person. I still am. Oh, I need help. I really do. Because I found out my icy nature is not suitable for shepherding or for God’s recovery work. Too many times when I see a saint I turn away or pretend not to see them. For people like me, I need to practice hugging. Brother, come up here. I need to practice hugging. (He hugs the brother.) I don’t mean holy hug movement. Please don’t do that. But, surely, the recovery has a lot of icemen that need to practice some hugging.
Good word, Minoru.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 03:36 AM   #7
YP0534
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
Default Re: Submitted for Your Approval

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
In 1 Cor 11:17-34, Paul is not talking about positive reasons for divisions, or factions.
Actually, the key may be even simpler than either you or I considered.

The term commonly translated "sects" in 11:19 is "αἵρεσις, hairesis," opinions, schools of thought.

In other words, Paul disapprovingly says he believes there are divsions (σχίσμα schisma) in verse 17, which doesn't surprise him because there need to be different opinions (αἵρεσις, hairesis) so that "the approved" may be manifest. Hope in the past has kind of hinted that something like this may be in these verses but I don't recall him actually articulating it.

Thus, 1 Cor. 11:17-19 is actually a strong antidote to the one-speaking doctrines that have grown up in the Local Church in recent years. Paul is endorsing diversity of opinion in the context of condemning divisiveness as a balancing word that might prevent what LSM has become.

We know that the Body of Christ incorporates those who do not consent to a one-publication rule in part because we know that the Body of Christ incorporates the assemblies in Asia in Rev. 2-3 although "all in Asia left" Paul. Rejecting the "unique minister of the age" did not terminate any "status" as an assembly. Why? Because, just as Paul says here, there must be different opinions that we may recognize who is "approved." (Eventually, I think we all know that Paul became manifestly "approved.") That said, such opinions must not become the basis for division, although it is altogether too common and predictable a result.

At least, that's my opinion...
__________________
Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17
YP0534 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 07:10 AM   #8
Cal
Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
Default Re: Submitted for Your Approval

It's hard to see what Paul is actually getting at in 1 Cor 11:18-20. For review:
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper (NASB)

In v. 18, it appears Paul is scandalized by the report of divisions, even shocked. But then he turns it around in v. 19 and seems to say that it is expected, even natural, and that some good may come of it. Verse 20 verifies that the divisions are really not a good thing.

A rough analogy might be when a mother comes home to find her child has wrecked his bedroom. At first the mother is aghast, but then says, "Well, I guess when you clean it up you might find the ball you lost last week."

Here are some other translations of v. 19:
No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. (NIV)

For doubtless there have to be factions or parties among you in order that they who are genuine and of approved fitness may become evident and plainly recognized among you. (Amplified)

No doubt you need to take sides in order to show which of you God agrees with! (NIV Readers)

The best that can be said for it is that the testing process will bring truth into the open and confirm it. (Message)
I like the NIV Readers somewhat, and The Message a lot here. (They have "taken sides" on what this verse means.) I especially like the tone of The Message. I think it may capture the meaning the best.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't tell us how we will know who is approved. Will it be those who are the nicest? Those who always go along with the official elders? Those who stay loyal to the Ministry. He doesn't say, he just says we will know. It's probably some combination of a lot of things. Observed godliness, adherence to truth, peace-seeking, etc.

But here's an important thing. If Paul were endorsing the LSM brand of approvedness, he simply would have said, Always submit to the ministry. He wouldn't have said that there is a dynamic vetting process of which we can't at the beginning know the outcome. Paul doesn't know who is going to be approved! He just knows that it's possible that someone will come out of a divisive disagreement approved, which implies that someone will come out disapproved.

When you think about it, there is really no other way, other than arbitration, which is--you guessed it--the LSM way. Arbitration by them, or by "the Apostle." That is, the poobah or several poobahs come in and tell everyone who's who and what's what. Anyone who doesn't fall in line is kicked out and blacklisted. But that's not Paul's way in 1 Corinthians.
Cal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 AM.


3.8.9