It’s not surprising really. The language that Paul uses here in 1 Corinthians 8 is very similar to the language in Romans 14—but it is also strikingly different.  So in this post I want to offer a comparison and contrast of some key terms in the chapters and how they’re used.

Of course, the chart will need some explanation since some will make the very mistake I’m talking about based on the chart alone. Seeing that both chapters talk about “the Weak” and “the Strong”, the automatic assumption is that they’re addressing the topic the same way…and that just isn’t the case.

For example, Romans 14 has some words for the weak: don’t judge the one who eats, be fully convinced in your own mind, give thanks to God, don’t judge your brother, there’s nothing unclean in itself. 1 Corinthians 8-10 says nothing to the weak.

Romans 14-15 has similar words for the strong: don’t regard the weaker with contempt, be fully convinced, we live for the Lord, bear with the weaknesses of the weak, don’t put an obstacle in their way, walk according to love. 1 Corinthians 8-10 has several reprimands: you have knowledge, but that only makes arrogant (1 Cor 8:1), real knowledge is grounded in the love of God (8:2); eating food doesn’t make you better (8:8); take care of this liberty of yours (8:9); you’re strengthening the weakened conscience to do wrong (8:10); you’re sinning against the brethren and against Christ (8:12); note how we the apostles have rights and what we’ve done with them (1 Cor 9); don’t be idolaters! (1 Cor 10:7)

Also note the idea-words that wind up in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and not in Romans 14-15.

Romans seems to deal more with things that are clean or unclean, set apart days or common days—it sounds very ceremonial. The sort of situation that would happen in a congregation comprised of Jews, who have a history with ceremonial law, and Gentiles, who have no such history.

1 Corinthians 8-10, on the other hand, introduces another category: the defiled (1 Cor 8:7) upon eating something. Paul says there’s nothing clean or unclean in itself in Romans 14 and that one not eating from faith is condemned if he eats something; but in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul actually makes the situation a matter of loyalty to a table: the Lord or that of Demons.

Even The Old Testament examples he even uses are striking. In Romans 15, he uses Psalm 69 to show how the Strong (Christ) bore the reproaches of others for their edification (Rom 15:2-3). But in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul goes through several Old Testament events to show how people who have knowledge, who experienced the power of God, who were eating the same spiritual food, could simultaneously test the Lord by performing idolatry: sometimes by worshipping God through an image they created, other times by setting their desires over that of the Lord, and yet other times when they joined themselves in practices with the pagans at a meal (1 Cor 10:8; Numbers 25). The examples he uses aren’t of bearing with burdens for edification sake but rather so that they flee from idolatry (1 Cor 10:14) because they are “strong” and should know better (1 Cor 10:15).

Indeed, even Paul’s conclusions, have very real differences. In Romans 14:14 Paul gives his opinion on those ceremonially clean/unclean things—they aren’t unclean. But in 1 Cor 10:19 he makes a similar statement: idols aren’t anything—but Demons are! (1 Cor 10:20).

So we have two passages that seem to deal with very different things. On the one hand (Romans 14-15), we have a situation of within the congregation dealing with scruples with, not grey areas, but rather areas of conscience and conviction.  On the other hand (1 Cor 8-10) we have an assembly that is blatantly playing around with something that they seem to think they have the freedom to do, but in actuality are binding themselves to very dark practices that can injure the entire community. It results in similar language (pleasing ourselves vs. what happens when we please ourselves) but the context is using them in a specific way (We ought not to please ourselves vs. Pleasing ourselves in this matter is dangerous).

But, we’ll have work through Paul’s argument with a bird’s eye view to see how his thinking flows.

Technorati Tags: "1 corinthian 8-10", "romans 14", idolatry

That is, right up until you put on someone else’s shoes.

In me and my friends’ house we take off our shoes at the door. One year, I had to run back out to the car and I quickly, accidentally, slipped on someone else’s shoes. It was the right color; had the right look; even matched my outfit—all the shoes looked similar.

But it slipped on a bit too easily; it was a bit too big; a bit too warm. I discovered that although I could easily put them on, walking in them was extremely disconcerting.

And it makes me think, if I can’t walk far in the shoes of someone I’ve known for a while, how much harder is it for me to walk in the shoes of a person far removed. Say, walking in the shoes of a farmer—when I’ve never been one.

Indeed, at what point would I discover that I’m wearing a farmer’s shoes?

Then, I think, what if I separated those shoes by a couple of thousand years. I mean, what about walking in the shoes of a Corinthian on his way to one of the local temples for a party? It’d be obvious if I found myself in his shoes, but if they were sitting at my front step, would I know it when I put them on?

I think that’s part of the problem when we consider things like idolatry. Shoes that slip on a bit too easily, really belong to some other era, but we don’t know that they’re readily available on our front step.

In today’s world, idolatry has gone through a lot—including a couple thousand years of Church history. We’ve gotten to a point where we do funny things with idolatry and wind up not knowing how to deal with the real thing when we see it. Like an expensive sneaker on a shelf, we have ideas about it but we don’t think that it’s readily accessible to us.

I mean, today, if I say “idolatry” folk either (narrowly) imagines some ancient heathen bowing in front of a candle-lit statue while sacrificing a pig; or they expand the meaning to cover obsession with anything other than God: like Monday Night Football or the World Cup. Idolatry winds up either not really happening today—part of a long dead, pre-scientific world—or happening every day and in every way when you (or I) look at a chocolate bar without thinking about the Lord.

As such, when our world starts looking more like the world of the two thousand year old Corinthian, we don’t really address it for what it is. Our Christian language kicks in and we obscure the issue and ignore the reality of what Paul was dealing with in Corinth. We walk around in the shoes of a first century Corinthian and interpret it all with Romans 14 freedom: horrifying error.

Paul, and that ancient Corinthian, was not wearing our shoes. We’re walking around in their shoes and, horrifying mistake, we don’t know it. So these next few posts will deal directly with 1 Corinthians 8-10.

Technorati Tags: 1 Corinthians 8-10, idolatry

Anyway, here’s the quote that’s appearing on the internet (here are a few places I’ve seen it); after the jump I’ll post the context (Bavinck, The Certainty of Faith-PDF):

‘[W]e must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride. Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentance, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.’

But now, for what Bavinck was really saying and then what he continues saying even about paganism.

On the Certainty of Catholic Faith (Sort-of-Rey’s header regarding pg 36,37):
Far be it from us to immediately denounce the latter with the protestant judgment that since such piety issues from a false principle—righteousness by works—it is therefore worthless to God. For no matter how much truth that judgment may contain, before we utter it we must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride.Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentance, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops to its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.

Nevertheless, Catholic piety, even in its best form, is different in character from that of protestantism. It always remains unfree, unemancipated, formal, legalistic. Complete inner certainty of faith is lacking. It always leaves room for the question: Have I done enough, and what else should I do? Rome deliberately keeps the souls of believers in a restless, so-called healthy tension. Spiritual life fluctuates between false assurance and painful uncertainty. Catholicism does not understand the word of Holy Scripture that the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God and that all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

On the Certainty of Pagan Faith (Sort-of-Rey’s header regarding page 56, 57)
The study of religions has, furthermore, achieved one important benefit: it has shed clear light on the superiority of the Christian religion over all other religions. There are, it is true, a few scattered groups in Europe and America who give precedence to Buddhism or Islam and have formally switched to these religions. And much greater are the ranks of those who feel they don’t need Christianity, can lead rich lives without it, and hate it all their lives. In fact, untold numbers are turning their backs on Christianity in humanistic pride or in practical indifference and are seeking satisfaction in paganism.

Yet, none of this detracts from the fact that the religious and ethical makeup of Christianity is far superior to that of all other religions. Nowhere else are nature and history, man and world, heart and conscience conceived with such intimate truth and so true to reality as in the Christian religion. Our self-knowledge and our knowledge of the world continually verify the knowledge of God revealed in Holy Scripture. This is the light on the path that leads through creation, and which is itself clarified and confirmed by all of nature and the whole history of mankind. We have no idea what we would be missing, into what dire spiritual poverty we would sink if the Christian religion and all its influence and impact were suddenly excised from our society and culture. If the Christian religion is not the true religion, there is every reason to despair of truth in the area of religion. Practically and concretely the question regarding certainty of faith comes down to this: In what way can the truth of Christianity be demonstrated and impressed on our souls so we are convinced?

Technorati Tags: bavinck, faith, misquotes

The day will come when my friends’ eyes, upon seeing my objecting hands, will roll. On that day I’ll look at my friends apologetically while my hands, like family members that say awkward things at inappropriate places resulting in seat-shifting silence, continue to rant. I’m not sure if my friends will forgive me, but I do hope they understand: my hands weren’t always this way.

Originally my hands spent days wading in the urban churches of New York City, and they were safely stifled by a lot of the problems that the younger generation faced. Oh sure, my hands would complain but only for issues dealing with moral ambiguity or the need for boys grow up. Most of the time, my hands decided to merely add their expressive amen’s to my preaching, a very subtle support and one that most folk didn’t seem to mind.

Yet this last couple of years my hands have been wading through the churches of the rural blushing suburban waters. They’ve enjoyed sitting with an older crowd of a different generation and cultural background, very often with no urban exposure. Such a situation would be fine in itself, leaving the hands folded in silent prayer or at worst, asleep in coat pockets.

But the fact that the rural blushing suburban hands clap and amen to their prognosis of the problem of modern churches-that being its lack of New Testament Principles or a general apostasy-is what make my hands shudder under the strain.

The problems are being overly simplified, my hands mutter. The problems are being masked by reasoning that should not be, my hands gripe. And then, my hands protest: heavenward, or in a downward spiral, pointedly, angrily, occasionally confusedly-but always expressively.

So if you see me coming your way: I’m sorry in advance. You know hands. You can’t really get rid of them and when they start their raving its hard to stop them.

Technorati Tags: church, fundamentalism, Plymouth Brethren

Back when Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code came out I had a few buddies quietly admit to me that they were facing a crisis in their faith. They had read the book and kept going back to his introductory page: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

It made them wonder. It made them doubt. Was Christianity a carefully orchestrated religion? Dan Brown’s evidence was very compelling and as far as I know, not many of us went to the book store to separate his facts from the false. Indeed, my friends would come through their crisis stating “it’s all about faith and Dan Brown can’t take that away from me.”

Well, here’s the cold fact: it’s not all about faith. Christianity claims that its origin is founded in a historical person and a historical event. If Christianity’s historical claims are false then it is probably the stupidest religion around. Yeah, stop and re-read that.

One oft-repeated claim that (also in the DaVinci Code, pg 231) was that the choosing of the New Testament Bible was by council where there were over 80 gospels to choose from, four of which are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Presiding over the council and making the final decision was Emperor Constantine.

Lie: never happened. In fact, the first council that ever stated which books are the official books of the Bible happened in the 16th Century during the Reformation.  And then it wasn’t even a decision it was pure acknowledgment and something that both Catholics and Protestants agreed with, besides a few apocryphal books not included by the Protestants.

Historically speaking, the books we have today were mostly accepted within the first century when there were no other Gospels. Paul (in or around 35A.D until about 60A.D) wrote a bunch of letters to churches and those stuck. They were passed around the churches as official since the get-go and were never doubted. We have historical documents of folk from the First Century quoting from Paul’s letters. Not only had that, around 150AD we actually have letters being passed around sometimes labeled The Gospel According to Matthew (and Mark, and Luke and John respectively).

The First list of the books of the New Testament came about from a guy named Marcion (150A.D) who thought there was too much Jewishness in Christianity so he proceeded to take his ancient X-Acto and cut out everything which he didn’t agree with.  We notice that his list had most of Paul’s letters (the same ones in our Bible today except for 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus) and a trimmed down version of Luke.

Luke-not even an apostle!

Here’s interesting: the Four Gospels of the Christian Bible claim to be written by two actual disciples (Matthew and John), some guy who wasn’t one of the original twelve (Mark), and a doctor who was a traveling buddy of Paul (Luke). These were the books that were always seen as official.

The Gospels (the 80 to choose from) that Brown is talking about came about much later written by People known as Gnostics. They believed a whole mess of weird stuff that you can probably find by watching the Matrix and Star Wars a few times over (the Real is not what you feel with this crude matter, but the Spiritual).

A marked point of interest in all of the Gnostic Gospels is that

1. they attributed their origin to one of the Twelve (like Thomas or Phillip, etc)
2. that they’re mostly a collection of sayings that reinforce Gnostic teaching and
3. they’re not Gospels.

Gospel, to Paul (and the early churches) was Good News. The Good News being that God became flesh, was seen, was touched, died on the cross and on the third day rose from the grave. If anything the letters of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are just long introductions to that main point.

The Gnostic Gospels don’t bother with a crucifixion:  it wasn’t their point.

Anyway, around the 18th Century a guy named Muratori discovered an ancient document (scientifically dated to about 190AD) with a list of the books of the Bible that has been authenticated by the early Churches. Those books being the four gospels, Pauls letters: in fact, most of our New Testament. Around 250A.D we have another document that has some disagreement about some of the books (like James and Hebrews) but the four gospels and Paul’s Letters are still in there.  Another document from 300A.D has a similar list, but the authorship of Revelation is in doubt. In an Easter Letter from 367A.D we have the list of books in our Bible today.

So here’s a historical shoe anybody can put on and get some wear out of: the Books in our Bible today are the same books that have been marked official since early on.

If you want to do some easy and fun reading on all this, check out Church History in Plain Language.

Technorati Tags: Canon, DaVinci code, New Testament