Abominations.

[Carl Emerson]

I understand that Paul is not in the Trinity.

So Jesus' actions would carry more weight.

I don't necessarily disagree with what Paul did, but I think after 2 millennia of combined interpretations flavoring and re-translating every verse - Placing priority on Jesus is important.

Does that mean Pauls writings are not scripture?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Read the OT through and witness the Jewish child sacrifice to Molech. The Cannibalism, the exile and captivity, the paganism and idol worship..... and try to find it in the Church.

Well we had an example of it the other day with a priest and two ladies in Church.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Because no one was calling them into question.

No one was calling into question the 'big three' that were mentioned.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The church is supposed to be a hospital for damaged / sinful people. Why not love sinners, educate them about repentance, and show them Christian example rather than ostracizing them?

The idea of excommunication has been used way too much by churches throughout history. It's difficult to know the exact circumstances in Corinth. It makes sense to excommunicate people who are proud of their sin and teach others to follow their example (this was probably the situation in Corinth), but not just bec of their sin.

Pauls motive was for the good of the young man - I think our concept of what the love of God is, has changed somewhat.

 

[Carl Emerson]

A sin is a sin is a sin..

Anyone who is not a believer and does not accept that Christ is their savior.. will never enter heaven.. will not have eternal life...

No matter if they are a mass murderer, petty thief... glutton, pedophile or abuser of others....

You are either saved... or not saved.

Yes it seems the young man was saved according to Paul.

 

[Ananias]

Yes it seems the young man was saved according to Paul.

Not all sin is given equal weight (lying to your mom about where you were after school is not the same as murdering someone). Theologians differ about how this actually works out regarding soteriology. The way I generally read it is that repentance is only acceptable from a truly penitent heart. A murderer who honestly and sincerely repents of his sin and turns to Christ will go to Heaven; a liar and thief who "repents" but remains inpenitent and incorrigible will not.

Even true penitence doesn't erase punishments of civil (worldly) law, I might add. A murderer may be forgiven in the eyes of God, for example, but the State is probably more hard-nosed regarding the punishment.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I don't think that the Old Covenant abominations are applicable in the New Covenant.

The Old Covenant was about conforming to a standard.

The New Covenant is about existing in a family ...

Consider Jerico and Ai...

There was a direct relationship between sin and the defeat, and the Israelites were operating as a community or big family. The spiritual health of that community was about being pure before God.

It is ironical that even today if one goes to Israel to settle as a believer, often they will have to swallow pride and be assisted by the Jews who have maintained more of an understanding of what it means to operate as a biblical community family that the church in the West.

Do you think Gods Hatred for Sin has changed ?

Can a church community be healthy with embedded abominations - not according to 1 Cor 5:9-13

 

[Carl Emerson]

Hi Carl:

The big issue is what word was used that was translated abomination? Some meant a terrible thing and others meant an unclean or common thing.

Many of the "abominations" God gave to Israel were simply things to do or not do to make them different from the gentiles around them.

All teh "abominations" that are sins have been carried over ot eh New with the exceptionof Sabbath. We live in a permanent Sabbath now so we are not required to observe a day!

We covered this issue earlier in the thread...

The abominations divide into two groups.

See Post #2

 

[chilehed]

No one was calling into question the 'big three' that were mentioned.

As I said, and that's why the Council didn't talk about them. Wasn't that something you asked? - why didn't the Council talk about them?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Reading the entire epistle, there were clearly a lot of problems among the Corinthians. Paul could have excommunicated half the church but he didn't. There must have been a special problem with this one person. As I wrote above, he could have been showing pride in his action or teaching others to do the same.

So secret sins are OK ???

What about 2 Cor 4:

2but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It's not about God changing/not changing. Society changes and the environment changes, and rights or wrongs can change depending on circumstances.

So we take a lead as to what is righteous from society and not the Scripture?

 

[Carl Emerson]

As I said, and that's why the Council didn't talk about them. Wasn't that something you asked? - why didn't the Council talk about them?

The answer is in the text -

Acts 15:

21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

This indicates that what were considered abominations was widely known already.

 

[Soyeong]

Hi there,

What relevance do the Old Covenant Abominations have in the New Covenant?

If God does not change, do these sins have greater consequence today?

Why did they get little mention at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

I appreciate your responses.

I doesn't make much sense to interpret God as flip flopping back and forth about whether something is an abomination against His eternal nature. In Acts 15:21, the expectation was that Gentiles would hear Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues, so it would have come up.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The Jerusalem Council particularly emphasised the "Big Three" because each one resulted in deep spiritual bondage and bring serious spiritual contamination into the Church.

 

[chilehed]

The answer is in the text -

If you knew the answer, why did you ask? If you agree with me, why do you seem to be trying to correct me?

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you knew the answer, why did you ask? If you agree with me, why do you seem to be trying to correct me?

Sorry I didn't mean to do that - I asked the question so that a particular truth would emerge in the conversation.

I have a different style than most - I raise an issue and talk through it to encourage folks to participate and collectively arrive at a scriptural view. It is a more relational way of wrestling with important issues rather than presenting one line of reasoning. This draws on the collective wisdom that the Lord has blessed CF with. It also gives us a better shot of learning from each other.

 

[Dave L]

Well we had an example of it the other day with a priest and two ladies in Church.

Are they believers?

 

[A_Thinker]

It is ironical that even today if one goes to Israel to settle as a believer, often they will have to swallow pride and be assisted by the Jews who have maintained more of an understanding of what it means to operate as a biblical community family that the church in the West.

I'm not familiar with the context of what you are saying here ...

Do you think Gods Hatred for Sin has changed ?

Can a church community be healthy with embedded abominations - not according to 1 Cor 5:9-13

God's hatred for sin has not changed, ... but His apparent methodology for dealing with sin appears to have changed.

According to my reading, the Old Testament is a lesson to humanity on how NOT to respond to sin. According to the Old Covenant, the response to sin leaves noone standing. And that doesn't particularly jive with God's creation of humankind in the first place. But ... we would have never believed that we could not live up to God's standard ... until He demonstrated that to be true. So, that is the purpose of the Old Covenant.

The understanding (from the Old Covenant) that humanity does not have the power (in itself) to live up to God's expectations ... should lead to at least some of us being open to the willingness to cast ourselves upon the offered grace of God. We want to be saved (i.e. to have a viable relationship with God), ... yet we know that we cannot meet th standard for such a relationship on our own, ... so we are willing to let God do it for us.

Under grace, God deals with His childrens' sin in a different way than in the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant (i.e. under grace), the payment for sin is no longer an issue (Christ having paid the penalty), so God focuses upon maturing His child to the point where child, themself, avoids the sin.

So the difference between dealing with sin under the Law ... and under Grace, ... is that, in the former case, the effort is to PAY for sin and eliminate it via fear of sanction, ... while, in the latter case, the effort is to make the childish perpetrator better.

As an example of this, take the instance of sin within the church which you referenced earlier (i.e. 1 corinthians 5). If this situation had been resolved according to the mandates of the Old Covenant Law ... And in similar manner to the Old Covenant examples you raised (i.e. Ai and Jericho) ... the offender would have been obliterated, ... probably within the witness of the congregation.

But that's not what happens. The Corinthians strive to TOLERATE the sin, ... at least until Paul upbraids them ... and compels them to put the offender out of the fellowship. But NOT to destroy him, ... but to turn him around to the acknowledgement of his non-conformity to the goodness inherent in God's instruction. And, indeed, this is what occurs ... with Paul following up and instructing the Corinthian church to readmit the former offender ... appropriate to his newly developed repentance.

 

[Ananias]

So the difference between dealing with sin under the Law ... and under Grace, ... is that, in the former case, the effort is to PAY for sin and eliminate it via fear of sanction, ... while, in the latter case, the effort is to make the childish perpetrator better.

Ananias* and Saphira disagree with you. (Acts 5:1-11)

*Not me, I swear!

 

[Andrewn]

Pauls motive was for the good of the young man - I think our concept of what the love of God is, has changed somewhat.

Is it that our concept of what the love of God is or is it that Paul knew how that particular person was going to react? A different sinner could have reacted in an unconstructive way and perhaps even lost his salvation in the process. The Corinthian church appears to have been a mess. Why was only one person excommunicated?

So secret sins are OK ???

How are you going to excommunicate someone for a reason that you're unaware of?

Why did Calvin excommunicate a lot of people? Was it out of love for their souls? What was the result of this excommunication?

Sure you can exclude people from a cult or a club of similarly-minded individuals. And many churches act that way.

But this is not God's way. Remember the parable of the wheat and tares?