Discussion on 1 Corinthians

This discussion is so needed:

“The quote in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 is completely out of character and out of line with both verse 36 and the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 14 that appears before these two “out of place” verses. …. It just means that it was a quote that Paul felt needed to be quoted exactly as it was written so that he could properly refute the quote in the following verses (1 Cor. 14:36-40). If this is not a quote from the Corinthians, then what was Paul refuting in verse 36? How could Paul possibly have made so many commands for all of us to test and discern all things (including prophesying) and then turn around and say that women were not to test the prophesying? This would make God out to be one who contradicts His own word.”

There’s a quote from Warren Wiersbe as well:

“The mistake the Corinthians were making was to emphasize their own personal edification to the neglect of the church. They wanted to build themselves up, but they did not want to build up their fellow believers. This attitude, of course, not only hurt the other Christians, but it also hurt the believers who were practicing it. After all, if we are all members of the same body, the way we relate to the other members must ultimately affect us personally.” Read the rest here.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Discussion on 1 Corinthians”

  1. Tom Huntford Says:

    Grace be with you from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

    Interesting blog.

    I was interested in HOFCC, but want to avoid the strifes over words that characterize the “Reformed”. Just want to follow Jesus Christ the Savior in all his ways.

    For your consideration. It is very dangerous to sling the term “legalistic” around. Remember that “legalism” is adding anything to the Gospel as a condition for salvation. Particularly, bringing in the Law in any form as a condition of salvation. 7th Day Adventists who say that you have to observe the Sabbath to be acceptable with God are legalists. Roman Catholics who proclaim that fealty to the Pope is a condition of salvation are legalists.

    But those who teach such things as that the New Testament commandments regarding the place of women are to be taken literally and simply are not legalists. I would not call either Calvanists or Arminians legalists. They have taken the mysteries of God and tried to reduce them to systems fully digestible by the mortal mind–and have ended up on opposite ends of a stick made of the same material: the wisdom of man.

    We also need to be careful to embrace all of what our Lord and Savior commanded. We need to remember that He said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” He also said, “Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” My dilemma is that I find brethren emphasizing one or the other. You seem to me to have swung heavily to the “love” side. As if someone were a legalist if they say, “I love Jesus. I want to obey everything He wants me to do. I do this out of faith, love, and the fear of God, to honor and glorify my Savior.”

    I disagree with the teachings at HOFCC for a few reasons: one is the emphasis on the family. Now, I am a homeschooler. But I have to admit that the “household evangelism model” is not the one emphasized in the New Testament. There are diversities of gifts, aren’t there? Some are bold, in-your-face, you-are-going-to-hell, street evanngelists. Some use their home in a special way, yes. And I’m sure you have met them. Some are merciful, showing compassion to the rejects. Some are hard-nosed, the ones to let the rejects know that they are not acceptable to God in their sinful condition that has led to their squalor. Others are “friendship evangelists”. Others are intellectual apologists. Christian physicists and chemists. Doctors travelling to Ethiopia for free medical clinics.

    COULD WE ALL ACCEPT EACH OTHER, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF SCRIPTURE?

    I am so tired of every side accusing the other side of legalism. Funny (not really), I was kicked out of a Calvanistic home, due to my belief that limited atonement is not clearly taught in Scripture, and that taking 1 John 2.2 at face value in no way demeans either the sovereignty of God nor the sufficiency of the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. How easily the Calvanists sling the term “legalist”! How easily you sling the term “legalist” at HOFCC!

    Quit it. They are not legalists.

    The doctrine of the place of woman is pretty clear, until you decide is isn’t a good way to go. Then its “legalism”.

    Not.

    Perhaps you believe that when the Scripture says a woman is not allowed to teach, the bishops are to be men, etc., that it doesn’t mean what it says, or was just for that day.

    But you call those who do “legalists?”

    Like in so many of these disagreements within the Body, I find the unkindness, and shallow assessment of the motives of others on all sides of the argument.

    I hope you will sort out what is truly extra-scriptural from what is based on plain statements of Scripture, in what people stand for. It is often a mix. Can you honor them for their desire to serve their Lord and Master by emphasizing some things that have been pretty much lost in the Church?

    What will happen at the next place you run into some doctrine that is not firmly based on Scripture? Or an emphasis that is somewhat limited to one man’s perspective? Legalists again.

    See if you can find the biblical term for your brethren. They are not legalists. Take that word out of your vocabulary except for true heretics who promote doctrines that add the Law in some way to the Gospel for salvation.

    May God bless you, strengthen you, and bring you to all fullness of what we have in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Tom

  2. Kathleen Says:

    Hey Tom,

    I read through your comment and was struck with your verbage here::

    ~ “How easily the Calvanists sling the term “legalist”! How easily you sling the term “legalist” at HOFCC!

    Quit it. They are not legalists.” ~

    Excuse me, but were you there?

    Also, you wrote::

    ~ ““legalism” is adding anything to the Gospel as a condition for salvation.” ~

    I’ve heard Gregg Harris preach over the years and recently online that if you aren’t living your life like their prescriptions for living (home/family business, homeschooling, the context is key) than you need to question your salvation. If you want exact quotes or links to those words, I’ll give them to you.

    You and I may disagree on the liberty that God has given women in the Body of Christ, and I wouldn’t call or think you a legalist. What I experienced at hofcc along with what they taught WAS adding to scripture and inserting and manipulating what the biblical texts say. It’s one thing to speak in theory about such teachings, and it’s another thing to live it.

  3. Kathleen Says:

    The funny thing is, I’m not sure why you brought the “legalist” argument to this particular blog post. Was that mentioned in this post? or was it another post you meant to comment on?

  4. Tom Says:

    I was browsing, about HOFCC, the website I came to had a whole series of blogs that I thought were basically one train of thought. Please pardon if it seemed out of place.

    Sad to hear.

    There is this swing I keep seeing, where “love and grace” are emphasized to such an extent that repentance and the fact that true faith will be demonstrated by works are lost. In the fight against this extreme, people then emphasize holiness to the point that it verges on, or becomes, a salvation that is based on prescribed “works”, like what happened with the Catholics.

    I have fellowshipped at HOFCC off and on, and read Gregg Harris’ “reforms”, which I found very refreshing–trying to bring together the various pieces of the puzzle.

    I honestly have a hard time believing they would fall into true legalism. If they are saying, “If you ignore this and this aspect of Scripture, maybe you should question your salvation”, that is, “examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith”, I think that is fair. I mean, something like over 50% of “Christians” say that Jesus sinned. Huge percentages say that other religions lead to acceptance with God. Fornication, divorce and remarriage, abortion, child abuse, dishonesty in business, pornography, etc are rampant in the “evangelical church”. Something is gravely wrong, isn’t it? Either we have a huge majority of true Christians who are very carnal, or we have a huge majority of “Christians” who are wolves in sheeps clothing. I think we reallydo need to examine ourselves, to see whether we be in the faith. The Scriptures point repeatedly to “good works” as a key indicator. Obedience to Christs’ commands are a key indicator. It would be truly saddening to me to find Gregg and his fellow believers teaching true legalism. I doubt it.

    But, you were there.

    I would just be very sad if Br. Harris were given a name he doesn’t deserve. I’ve met and heard Steve Rouse, John Pontier, etc. Not perfect, but sure didn’t seem to have any true legalism about them. Are you sure? Are you sure that the teaching on the authority of the male in the Church and the family was emphasized to a degree you found distasteful, you find you disagree, they are holding firmly to what they see as a plain command and teaching of the Lord, and are preaching that those who ignore it should really examine their hearts? I just find it so hard to believe they would even come close to teaching that acknowledging these kinds of areas are an actual basis of salvation.

    PS So few people seem to understand the implication of Hebrews 6–that (as the Calvinists would say is only a theoretical possibility) if one could fall away, it would only be by a true denial of the basics of the faith. You can get messed up on all kinds of issues, even get into the Father’s Woodshed. Even loose your life like Ananias and Sapphira, or like what is written at the end of 1 John, “there is a sin unto death”. But not “lose your salvation”. I sure hope the brethren at HOFCC have not lost sight of that.

    But I hope you will be charitable, and consider the frustration (which I share) of seeing plain commands of Scripture just tossed wholesale under the pretense of “culture of the day”; gross immorality and false doctrine among “believers”. And the desire to teach strongly the need for obedience, which is such a function of the New Testament, that often the preaching and writing I see, and the practice of “believers” that I see, seem to be a religion from another planet, so to speak.

    Tom

  5. Kathleen Says:

    Perhaps you haven’t read the other posts on my blog about hofcc and its teachings.

    If you want to hear for yourself Gregg teaches these things, then go here::

    http: //ghofcc.org/sermons/

    Read about and see for yourself the teachings I review here:

    https://kateschosen.wordpress.com/exclusivity-condescension-preferential-teachings-and-why-i-disagree-strongly-with-these-teachings/

    Hofcc went through a church split, with the original elders leaving, after dealing with Gregg’s overemphasis with non-essentials of the faith/gospel and other disturbing factors. The above church website isn’t even the same as the other hofcc.org congregations, as Gregg’s hofcc became a sole entity somehow.

    One example of legalism, based on presuppositions and poor biblical scholarship::
    __________
    The Visitor’s Booklet has a section that reads:

    Using Our “Open Microphone” to Move In The Gifts Of The Spirit

    “Each one has a song, a teaching, a revelation …” (1 Cor.14:26). During our worship the Holy Spirit prompts believers to build up one another by means of spiritual gifts. This “body ministry” is welcomed, provided it is offered in keeping with the guidelines laid down by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:12-19 & 26-35. So, this is how it works.

    All of our men, ages 13+, are free to speak without prior “screening” by others. This is because, “the head of every man is Christ,” (1 Cor. 11:2-7). However, all that is said will be evaluated by the Elders and other men of the church as to its faithfulness to the Bible. Paul does not permit women to participate audibly [their emphasis, not mine] in the evaluation process (see 1Cor. 14:31-35). On the other hand, women may move in the spiritual gifts. Phillip had four daughters who prophesied. (Acts 21:9) But, because “the head of a wife is her husband” (1Cor. 11:2-7) a wife or daughter must ask her own husband or father for his [their emphasis, not mine] oversight before going to the “open mike.” [sp] Our Elders will cover for those whose husband or father is not present. Time may not permit everyone to share. Allow the Worship Leaders to pace the flow of this ministry, and defer to one another.”

    _________

    This prevents a single woman from having authority given her by the Holy Spirit to speak a word of encouragement, without having to “ask permission” from a perceived male “authority”, who, for the most part, probably doesn’t pay her rent, bills, or help in any other events in her day-to-day life. In this scenario, a 13 year old young man/boy, has more supposed spiritual authority on his head to speak at the “open mic” than a woman who has served her community, her elderly parents, etc., than a hormone-filled boy who wants to spread his oratorial wings at the “open mic”.

    This is one example of teachings I find to be very legalistic. There were many more instances of group-think that over the years morphed into their teachings. I’ve spoken with one former elder and he confirmed that when the small church started out with a few families unsatisfied with their former church(es) it was much more free in its worship style and teachings. Something has changed that has made nearly all of those original families leave and start a different church, called The Gathering.

  6. Kathleen Says:

    More examples for you to investigate for yourself::

    https://kateschosen.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/sharing-my-concerns/#comments

    Here is the audio to the sermon where Gregg Harris recommends The Return of the Daughters to his congregation. It is a contradictory and nonsensical, and a careless handling of the scriptures video by the Botkin sisters, affiliated with Vision Forum
    http://odeo.com/episodes/18147013-Doing-Well-by-Doing-Good

    Mr. Harris talks about a model household, and toasters, and modern appliances: https://kateschosen.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/things-that-modern-patriarchs-dont-want-you-to-know/#comment-697

    When you listen to this one, he is backhandedly referring to his lifestyle with his family, using his homeschool/home business etc., as the ideal:
    http: //ghofcc.org/sermons/?sermon_id=11

    … as well as this follow up sermon::
    http: //ghofcc.org/sermons/?sermon_id=12

    My family was at Gresham hofcc from 2001 up to 2008.

    Read through my blog posts, if you have time, and read his exact quotes, taken in context, and then maybe we can have a discussion on his teachings that have influenced many people.

    As far as my understanding of “male authority” over women in general, in a biblical discussion, we may disagree. The way it was handled in the church settings was certainly not deferring to one anothers’ giftings, but nevertheless, that wasn’t the issue that made me and dozens of other families to leave his teachings.

    Some talking points::

    – Do you believe that men, specifically, if they don’t try to start their own business, aren’t “doing hard things” and “are weak and lacking in faith”?

    – Do you feel comfortable that Gregg Harris has announced from several pulpits at hofcc that the leadership there “are Calvinists”, and as such, that is the perspective they want preached from the pulpits?

    – Do you feel comfortable that Gregg has preached in one of his audio linked sermons I have in my “Exclusivity” blog post that he wants his congregation to be a congregation of “employERS rather than employEES”?

    – Do you feel comfortable with the fact that nearly every sermon Gregg Harris preaches is straight out of his homeschool seminars? And that for all the years we ever attended? He quotes verbatim his seminars (which I have linked to with the PDFs and slideshows that show the same teachings he feeds his congregation each Sunday).

    – Do you believe Youth Leaders are unbiblical, and if so, do you also believe lucrative Rebelution seminars/conferences where young girls hang on the words of teen boys (Alex and Brett Harris) and beg for autographs to be unbiblical, too? If one isn’t mentioned in the Scriptures (youth ministry/paid youth minister) why is it also alright to approve of The Rebelution conferences, where young men earn anywhere from $70,000 per conference? (The Rebelution was HIGHLY promoted to excess at Gresham during its time here at Rolling Hills church) Run by volunteers, The Rebelution is handled as a “non-profit” that succeeded because they get a following of faithful volunteers to run them.

    — In light of the above information about The Rebelution entity/business, do you believe it to be fair for Gregg Harris to teach in one of the audio links above that young people/teens should work in the “family business” or a business of their own, RATHER THAN their parents “sending them out as RESOURCES FOR SOMEONE ELSE”? Considering he and his family receive free help for their “family business”, I mean, ministry, this is confusing to me. Also, if and whenever the idea of sending teens to get their first work experience in say, a fast food restaurant, like when I was a teen in the ’80’s, it is flatly rejected. It’s a lowly lifestyle and why would we send our teens into such a mentality of serving another man besides your own father’s business or your own? (this is an example of the attitudes that came out in our usual interactions with people, with them knowing my husband is a fast food restaurant supervisor. Ouch, the condescension was icky.

    You said here::

    “The Scriptures point repeatedly to “good works” as a key indicator.”

    That’s a good place to start, when it comes to talking about works. Define “works”. According to many of Gregg’s teachings, starting a home business is considered a “good works”, in light of Ephesians “created for good works”, and is Gregg’s teaching on “the obedience of faith”.

  7. Kathleen Says:

    Here’s just one of my many experiences with the authoritARIAN (not authoritATIVE, like Harris likes to talk about) control they use against people who question their teachings —

    “OH! And one last thing. Gregg came to my blog after I posted a comment in a local paper, under a pseudonym, because I didn’t want to reveal my son’s identity there. So, Gregg came here and confronted me. He didn’t try to reconcile in person (he lives 4 minutes away). He didn’t address my points on his teachings. No, it seems the elders of my church congregations saw my comments I made. Gregg then called my husband (not me directly) who hadn’t even seen what I’d written yet. Gregg asked my husband to ask me to take down my blog post “because it’s harmful”. My husband, not being the confrontational type, said he’d ask me.

    Of course I said “No way in he** will I take it down”, because I could see how this was turning. He just can’t handle anyone questioning his teachings. He’s surrounded himself with yes men and has had a history of doing these types of things to people he can’t control (I have a friend that used to attend the same church as him years ago. He was very condescending then, too, but that’s another story.)

    I happen to be a woman who actually studies the scriptures for myself, without believing that my husband has to interpret the Bible for me, or be my earthly priest (the eldership believe the CBMW article on the husband being “Prophet, Priest and King” of his wife and family). That’s a twisting of scripture. It’s idolatry.

    So, when my husband was talking to Gregg about this, Gregg responded with something like, “The elders and I will be discussing this together about what to do”. Does that sound like I was even considered in this equation? No. That told me everything I needed to know. I knew that I had to leave that congregation, after all the grief I’d gone through with many of their “inner circle”, and the constant condescension. The Gospel is trotted out like a carrot to lure people in to a gnostic, ascetic set of teachings there.” https://kateschosen.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/things-that-modern-patriarchs-dont-want-you-to-know/#comment-714

  8. Kathleen Says:

    Another disturbing quote has been nagging me since I heard it a while ago.

    I’ll dig it up, if I can find it.

    While preaching a sermon that included the usual stuff Gregg preaches about family, business, doing hard things, obedience of faith, etc., he held his family up as examples and also other families who have caught his “vision” for home business, etc. He actually said,

    “Follow US as WE follow Christ.”

    What do you think of that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: