"Whoever is not against us..." -- Misapplying Mark 9:38-40

[jubilationtcornpone]

Last August, I was talking to two gentlemen about church doctrines. We discussed the way many churches water the gospel down, or otherwise use questionable tactics to keep people within their pews. At one point, these gents said, "Ah, but remember, even if we disagree with their tactics and doctrines, that doesn't make them wrong. Jesus did say that whoever is not against us is for us." This was a clear reference to Mark 9:38-40.

I objected, saying, "I don't think that's what Jesus meant! He wasn't saying that these doctrinal differences are unimportant. Rather, he was talking about preachers who were not travelling with the Apostles, but who gave no indication of doctrinal falsehood." Indeed, verse 38 makes this clear. It shows John saying, "We saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." There is nothing about false teaching in this passage; it is all about membership in the Apostolic clique.

I think it's disappointing to see how many Christians are willing to overlook fundamental doctrinal errors for the sake of unity. How many are willing to tolerate the teachings of those who preach aberrant theology (prosperity gospels, ecumenism, repentance-free salvation, and so forth) by saying "Whoever is not against us is for us?"

 

[BigNorsk]

I'm not sure what you mean by watering down the gospel. Hard to water down good news. Maybe you mean they don't preach any law so the unbelievers aren't convicted of their sins?

If they are changing the message in order to tickle people's ears, then that's a problem. Having people in the pews that aren't in agreement with sound doctrine is not a problem. That is an opportunity to share God's message. Either to an unbeliever or a believer that is unsound in doctrine. If anyone who isn't in perfect agreement is driven from the church that is also a problem. It's a matter of balance.

If you could give examples of what you mean by watering down, it would be helpful.

Marv

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

I'm not sure what you mean by watering down the gospel. Hard to water down good news. Maybe you mean they don't preach any law so the unbelievers aren't convicted of their sins?

If they are changing the message in order to tickle people's ears, then that's a problem.

That is indeed what I mean. Many preachers purport to teach the gospel, but gloss over the need for repentance, for example. Still others skip over this topic entirely.

Others talk about how God wants to bless us and has a wonderful plan for our lives. While that's certainly true, it's not the gist of the gospel. It's presenting the "good news" without actually presenting any of the bad. Such preaching can lead to a great many false conversions.

We could talk about many other examples, but I hope people get the point. We should never excuse such teaching by saying, "Whoever is not against us is for us." That's not what Jesus meant.

 

[BigNorsk]

I think it would be better if you maintained the distinction between law and gospel. Preaching all gospel isn't a watered down gospel, it's an incomplete sermon. The gospel is not intended by God to be used to convict us of our sins. To try and do so is a misapplication of it.

There are also mixed up or different gospels that you seem to complain about. The Health and Wealth gospel is certainly one that is a bit different than the gospel in the Bible. I guess if those silly Apostle's just had a little faith they could have had nicer homes.

The whole thing seems to me to be a progression. The loss of the distinction between law and gospel, leads to exclusion of one in favor of the other, (you can find both law churches and gospel churches), then different gospels show up.

Marv

 

[visionary]

The "Whoever is not against us is for us." crowd do have a inclusive and exclusive mentally about their faith. I think that those who are like this in faith are also those who will inadvertantly cut Jesus out because of the convictions they do not like. They end up with a shell of a religion in their lives.

 

[Nereu]

I think it is perfectly clear what Jesus said. I see no reason to interpret His words. His words seem to say exactly what He meant.



37Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40For he that is not against us is on our part. 41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

I believe those gentlemen were well within their rights to make that claim. I think their claim is indeed supported by scripture.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

I believe those gentlemen were well within their rights to make that claim. I think their claim is indeed supported by scripture.

Really? Well then, where does the passage state that these men were teaching things that were contrary to what Jesus thought?

Quite simply, it does not. There is absolutely no indication that these "others" were teaching anythign that was contrary to what Christ espoused. In addition, the Bible routinely condemns false teachings, and urges us to do likewise. That is why it is fallacious to say that "Whoever is not against us is for us" should be used to excuse false teachings.

 

[Nereu]

There is absolutely no indication that these "others" were teaching anythign that was contrary to what Christ espoused.

So what is the problem?

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

So what is the problem?

Nereu, do I need to spell this out for you? I already discussed this in the opening post.

1. Some claim that we should overlook erroneous teachings, since Jesus said "Whoever is not against us is for us."
2. The passage in question, Mark 9:38-40, is about the Apostles and their encounter with a man who was casting out demons, but did not belong to the Apostolic traveling band.
3. There is no indication that this man was promoting any false teachings. In fact, there is no indication that he was teaching at all. The passage merely says that he was casting out demons.

ERGO, it is fallacious to say that we should tolerate false teachings because "Whoever is not against us is for us." That is NOT what the passage was saying.

Nereu, I really hope that I don't have to explain this again.

 

[Nereu]

Nereu, do I need to spell this out for you? I already discussed this in the opening post.

1. Some claim that we should overlook erroneous teachings, since Jesus said "Whoever is not against us is for us."
2. The passage in question, Mark 9:38-40, is about the Apostles and their encounter with a man who was casting out demons, but did not belong to the Apostolic traveling band.
3. There is no indication that this man was promoting any false teachings. In fact, there is no indication that he was teaching at all. The passage merely says that he was casting out demons.

ERGO, it is fallacious to say that we should tolerate false teachings because "Whoever is not against us is for us." That is NOT what the passage was saying.

Nereu, I really hope that I don't have to explain this again.

Your sarcasm is noted. I believe you are missing my points. I really hope I don't have to repeat myself. The fact of the matter is that I disagree with you, and agree with those two gentlemen. I believe you go wroong when you presume to interpret Jesus. I simply listen to Him and read His words. It is my opinion that those two gentlemen do as I do. Your not understanding my point seems to be locked into your idea that you can simply interpret and give meanings that are not there to scripture.

I believe it a similar case in the other thread. Other people have ideas too, you know.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

The fact of the matter is that I disagree with you, and agree with those two gentlemen. I believe you go wroong when you presume to interpret Jesus. I simply listen to Him and read His words.

No, because your are ascribing an interpretation as well.

Again, I ask... Where does this passage say that this demoncaster was preaching falsehood? If all one must do is "read His words," without any interpretation, then surely this would be spelled out in glorious black and white.

So where does Mark 9 say that this man was teaching falsely? Quite simply, it doesn't.

 

[slammingranny56]

It seems like they only read part of was being said, they didnt read v 37&41.

Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

If some one uses The Word they have to use all of it not just part.
You cant pick and choose what you want and disguard the rest because it changes
it. and there is a warning about that in Rev

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
The Bible iRev 22:19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

The Bible isnt supposed to be altered to make a point.Not even with good intitions.
They either were in error or they choose to alter what was said to get thier point acro
ss.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Your not understanding my point seems to be locked into your idea that you can simply interpret and give meanings that are not there to scripture.

Nonsense. You are the one who is saying that this passage preaches tolerance toward people with teachings that differ from those of Christ. However, nowhere does this passage say that the demoncaster was teaching anything contrary to God's Word. You are the one who is ascribing meanings that are not there.

You are NOT simply reading his words. Rather, you are adding to what the Bible says. The Bible NEVER said that the demoncaster's teachings were at all different from those of Christ. NEVER.