[Akoue]

Revgade already explained what it means in context. This discussions shows a common problem with Biblical interpretation - both of these provide the context of what Paul is saying and indeed throughout scripture we have a great deal about judging. The problem comes when a single verse such as the one in 1 Cor 4 is taken out of context both of the local passage and of scripture as a whole - that is when we end up with errors such as the belief that we are not to judge at all, when in fact scripture is abundantly clear that we are to judge, but to judge in accordance with the limitations imposed by God and to judge righteously.

Apparently you didn't read the post you quoted. We are to judge (anakrino) but we aren't to judge (krino). Two different words, meaning two different things, used in two different passages. At 1Cor.4.5 we are told not to judge (krino) until the Lord comes. You are welcome to your private or denominational interpretation, but ignoring the meanings of words isn't likely to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Scripture is perfectly clear on this, it even uses two different words so as not to confuse us.

[Akoue]

Let's just be clear about what St. Paul is saying in 1Cor.4.1-5

He says that he should be regarded as a steward of Christ and of the mysteries of God. A steward must be found to be trustworthy, he tells us. Next he says that it doesn't bother him at all to be examined (anakrino: translated "judged") by a human tribunal (notice the legal terminology: tribunal). He doesn't examine (anakrino) himself (that's for the tribunal or judge to do). Although he isn't aware of anything against him, he does not thereby stand acquitted (again, legal terminology: acquitted). So, he says, don't go around making any judgments (krino, about who is guilty or who is to be acquitted) before the return of the Lord; he is the only one who can pass judgment (krino), since he knows our motives and what is in our hearts. The legal language deployed here makes perfect sense of the use of the verb "krino" (remember, this is different from anakrino).

So it doesn't bother him to be examined (anakrino), but we aren't to pass judgment (krino). In 1 Cor.2.14-16 he is talking about the spiritual person examining (anakrino) spiritual things. And the spiritual person (ho pneumatikos) is not subject to being examined (anakrino) by those who aren't spiritual--he calls them hoi psuchikoi. And that makes sense, since the unspiritual person wouldn't understand the spiritual person (which is the point he makes earlier in ch.2).

And here's how clever St. Paul is. In 1Cor.4.3-4 he uses "anakrino" (the preposition "ana" or "before" + "krino"--anakrino is the stuff one does before rendering a judgment or verdict). Then, in v.5, he switches to "krino". So the word anakrino (before + krino) occurs BEFORE KRINO--now that's clarity for you! So the stuff that is done before krinein (the infinitive of krino), that is conducting an examination, searching into the matter, that's okay, that doesn't bother him; but we mustn't render the judgment or verdict ourselves (v.5). Not only does this comport beautifully with the passage you cite, at 1Cor.2.14-16, where we're encouraged to examine spiritual realities, but it's as if St. Paul is saying, "Tom, you've completely misunderstood what I'm talking about". You're right about one thing though: Context is really important!

Judgment, the rendering of a verdict (krino), must await the Lord's return, and this is clearly indicated to be a *future* event. He alone is the judge. It is for us only to examine, to search out (anakrino), to do the stuff that comes before a judgment is rendered and which is not itself the rendering of that judgment.

[Akoue]

Oh, and I just checked Mt.7.1-5 ("judge not"): Yeah, it's "krino" there too.

[Tj3]

Apparently you didn't read the post you quoted. We are to judge (anakrino) but we aren't to judge (krino). Two different words, meaning two different things, used in two different passages. At 1Cor.4.5 we are told not to judge (krino) until the Lord comes. You are welcome to your private or denominational interpretation, but ignoring the meanings of words isn't likely to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Scripture is perfectly clear on this, it even uses two different words so as not to confuse us.

First, it is not my interpretation - I am reading what Paul said, but I am reading all of it.

I did. I read it in the whole of the context of what Paul is saying. Keep in mind that when the word "Therefore" is used, this is a conclusion. It is not introducing new information but is simply providing the conclusion / summary of Paul's argument. You cannot therefore claim that the conclusion is speaking about a different topic than the preceding argument.

Further. To claim that we are not to judge anything (which is out of context for 1 Cor), would be contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. For example:

John 7:24
24 Do not judge (krino) according to appearance, but judge (krino) with righteous judgment."
NKJV

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge (kriino) that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

These are just examples. Your private interpretation is ignoring both the local and the wider context of scripture, and in an effort to support a theological system of men is attempting to place one passage ion contradiction with other parts of scripture.

[Akoue]

You cannot therefore claim that the conclusion is speaking about a different topic than the preceding argument.

Um, I don't know if you noticed, but you just used "therefore" to introduce "new information".

Further. To claim that we are not to judge anything (which is out of context for 1 Cor),

Well, I explained the context. If you wish to quarrel with my explanation, by all means, go to my earlier posts and explain, for each claim, the precise nature of my error. Vague allusions to "context" won't do, since I've explained the relevant context. You haven't, though--"the context of the rest of scripture"?. how lazy is that?

would be contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. For example:

John 7:24
24 Do not judge (krino) according to appearance, but judge (krino) with righteous judgment."
NKJV

Acts 15:19-21
19 Therefore I judge (kriino) that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

These are just examples. Your private interpretation is ignoring both the local and the wider context of scripture, and in an effort to support a theological system of men is attempting to place one passage ion contradiction with other parts of scripture

Actually, Jn.7.24 comports nicely with what I said above: The context is juridical, he's talking about the Law. Acts 15.19-21: Paul has judged, he has made a final determination, etc. What's the problem? He's not talking about usurping what belongs only to Christ (as we learn from 1Cor.4.5). You are once again ignoring the context; Paul is talking about different things in Acts 15.19-21 and 1Cor.4.1-5. (Search engines can be a double-edged sword.)

There isn't anything in 1Cor. That could reasonably lead one to conclude that 1Cor.4.5 is not instructing us not to judge (pass a verdict on ourselves or others) prior to the return of the Lord. I've explained the meaning of the text (we even have the nice play on anakrino and krino, before passing judgment and passing judgment). Your private or denominational interpretation hides behind vague allusions to "context" (thrown around in the way you do, "context" is a very elusive and slippery thing) as a way to avoid coming to terms with your own error, arrogating to yourself and your denominational fellows what is Christ's alone. You have misunderstood the "context", bending it to fit your private or denominational interpretation.

[Tj3]

Um, I don't know if you noticed, but you just used "therefore" to introduce "new information".

Your unsubstantiated claim does not make it so. You, on the other hand, are claiming that Paul brought up a new topic, a different reference to judging than prior to the "therefore". Trying to distract from this does not alter that fact.

Well, I explained the context. If you wish to quarrel with my explanation, by all means, go to my earlier posts and explain, for each claim, the precise nature of my error. Vague allusions to "context" won't do, since I've explained the relevant context. You haven't, though--"the context of the rest of scripture"?. how lazy is that?

You did not deal with the context. I did, and have a few times, but you keep going back to your private interpretation.

Actually, Jn.7.24 comports nicely with what I said above: The context is juridical, he's talking about the Law. Acts 15.19-21: Paul has judged, he has made a final determination, etc. What's the problem?

You said that scripture says not to judge. That is what we are discussing. So I presume that you are now conceding the point that we are to judge.

[Akoue]

Paul brought up a new topic, a different reference to judging

I'm saying that Paul uses two different words in 1Cor.4.1-5. "Anakrino", which he says doesn't bother him, and "krino", which he contrasts with "anakrino" and tells us not to do. It's the same topic; he is drawing a contrast between what is permissible and what isn't. Duh.

You did not deal with the context. I did, and have a few times, but you keep going back to your private interpretation.

Since you haven't explained where in my earlier posts I've gone astray, I can only assume you must agree with me. That's great! I'm glad to see you've finally jettisoned your private interpretations which ignore basic terminological distinctions. It's good to see you embrace the word of God as it is written.

You said that scripture says not to judge. That is what we are discussing. So I presume that you are now conceding the point that we are to judge.

St. Paul, at 1Cor.4.5, says not to judge regarding who is and who isn't going to heaven (this is, after all, the topic of this thread). I'm assuming he knew what he was talking about. For my part, I expressly stated that not all judgment is of a piece (a fact brought out by revdrgade, as well). From the fact that the translation you favor provides the word "judge" it doesn't follow that the Greek has only one word. "Krino" and "anakrino", both translated a "judge" in the translations you offered in earlier posts, don't mean the same thing. Judgment regarding who is and who is not going to heaven is reserved for the Lord (kurios/kurion) since he alone knows our motives and our hearts.

Aside: Notice that St. Paul uses the title Lord (kurios) for Christ? This was a title that was used for pagan emperors (e.g. Alexander the Great). Kind of like "ponitfex maximus". I don't imagine St. Paul was importing paganism into the true faith, do you? (No need to answer: just an off-topic aside.)

[Tj3]

I'm saying that Paul uses two different words in 1Cor.4.1-5. "Anakrino", which he says doesn't bother him, and "krino", which he contrasts with "anakrino" and tells us not to do. It's the same topic; he is drawing a contrast between what is permissible and what isn't. Duh.

Thus my point. You are saying that his discussion is a contrast to the conclusion - thus introducing new material in the conclusion. That is not logical, and not in context with the discussion that Paul makes in 1 Cor.

Since you haven't explained where in my earlier posts I've gone astray, I can only assume you must agree with me.

Then you have not been following our discussion.

St. Paul, at 1Cor.4.5, says not to judge regarding who is and who isn't going to heaven (this is, after all, the topic of this thread). I'm assuming he knew what he was talking about. For my part, I expressly stated that not all judgment is of a piece (a fact brought out by revdrgade, as well).

First, you may be confusing some of my responses to you with those to De Maria who is saying that we are to judge "nothing".

Second, though in general it is true that we are not to judge the hearts of others as to whether they are saved, there are exceptions to that in scripture also, but it seemed to me that this topic was not referring general wo whether we can judge whether others are saved, but what is the "hope" that God has given us for our own salvation? Did He mean what He said when he promised us assurance, or was he just saying that you have a chance but you'll find out later? That is what it seems to me that this is about. It seemed to me that you and De Maria were moving this from that specific topic to something more general with respect to either judging salvation in general or judging in general (in De Maria's case). In this regard, I found many comments that you made to be off to the side of what we were discussing, and that is why I remained focused in my responses. That may be why you thought I was not responding.

Now, since we are speaking about salvation, you should also note this part of the context:

1 Cor 3:12-17
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
NKJV

Note that Paul is speaking to those who are the temple of God - he is already judging them saved, so he is not speaking about whether we judge salvation, but rather the judgment of the saint which takes place when Christ returns which is the judgment of works to determine which crowns we receive.

This is a brief (though not exhuastive) overview of the errors therefore in your private interpretation which are indeed numerous.

Aside: Notice that St. Paul uses the title Lord (kurios) for Christ? This was a title that was used for pagan emperors (e.g. Alexander the Great). Kind of like "ponitfex maximus". I don't imagine St. Paul was importing paganism into the true faith, do you? (No need to answer: just an off-topic aside.)

I am surprised that you would make this suggestion. If so you know that kurios simply means lord, and could be, and indeed was applied to many different people in positions of authority (somewhat like the term we use commonly today "sir"), unlike Pontifex Maximus which was specific to the Emperor, the head of the pagan Roman religion. To suggest that Paul was promoting paganism within the church is something that I would suggest is not only historically wrong, but also highly inappropriate.

[Akoue]

Let's do take a look at 1Cor.3.

God did not need human instruments but decided to employ Paul and Apollos. It's silly to try to set Paul and Apollos off against each other since they are together a single instrument of God. Even though all the credit goes to God, "each shall receive his wages", this in acknowledgment of the ministers' contribution.

Then we come to v.10 and the building metaphor. The work of each will be disclosed on the Day of Judgment. Some will receive a reward for their work. To mistakenly undertake a work is not to be condemned (remember, as we see in ch.4, v.5, Christ judges our hearts and motives, so honest mistakes don't necessarily merit damnation). The Church is holy (v.17). Become a fool (by accepting the foolishness of the Cross). In v.19 we find a non-Septuagint translation of Job. At v.20, Paul substitutes "wise" for "men" when citing Ps.94.11. Finally we get a formal statement of the relation of all to Christ.

This brings us back to ch.4. Paul didn't appoint himself, nor did the Corinthians appoint him. He isn't bothered about being "judged" (anakrino, examined) by them. His concience is clear, but this is no guarantee that the one true judge agrees. It is for Christ to determine a verdict (krino) since he alone knows our hearts and our motives. Human judgments (ana+krino, before THE judgment) are prior to Christ's judgment (his rendering of the verdict) and are only provisional (pre-judgments, or pre-verdicts, if you will--in the sense of ana+krino).

Interestingly, St.Paul precisely does not claim to "judge them saved", as you put it; if he had, he might have said it here. Your interpretation, then, is an interpolation. It is not warranted by the text. Judgment of the sort that is at issue in this thread is the prerogative of the Lord alone; no such judgment is to be rendered before the time of his return (4.5). (One might even go so far as to say that anyone who does is an anti-Christ, setting himself up in the position of judge which is Christ's alone. And since Satan can quote Scripture, it wouldn't surprise me to hear of an anti-Christ who claims for himself the right to judge (in the sense of 1Cor.4.5), perhaps even bending Scripture in such a way as to make himself look to some as though he were being faithful to God's word.)

You are, of course, welcome to continue adducing further passages of Scripture. So far, none that you have offered has suggested that I've misunderstood 1Cor.4.5. You appear to be firmly in the grip of a private or denominational interpretation of Scripture. You have as yet said nothing to unpack your frequent allusions to "context" in a way that indicate any error in my reading of the texts. It might serve your interests better to stick with the few pericopes already on offer and provide a clear and detailed account of the errors you take me to have committed. Failing that, I prefer to stick with the word of God--in preference to your own private interpretation.

As for kurios: Alexander was regarded as a (pagan) deity. The term was used to refer to pagan gods and demi-gods, among others. If we aren't to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "kurios", there is no good reason to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "Pontifex Maximus". The mere use of these terms does not amount to a "paganization" of Christianity, anymore than does the use of the term "theos" which was actually used for, you know, pagan gods.

[JoeT777]

Let's do take a look at 1Cor.3.

God did not need human instruments but decided to employ Paul and Apollos. It's silly to try to set Paul and Apollos off against each other since they are together a single instrument of God. Even though all the credit goes to God, "each shall receive his wages", this in acknowledgment of the ministers' contribution...

Excellent; “each shall receive his wages” wages promised, I might add.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Let's do take a look at 1Cor.3.

God did not need human instruments but decided to employ Paul and Apollos. It's silly to try to set Paul and Apollos off against each other since they are together a single instrument of God.

You apparently are back into using strawman arguments - no one argued this. This is why you find that I don't always respond to everything that you post - much of it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Then we come to v.10 and the building metaphor. The work of each will be disclosed on the Day of Judgment.

So now it appears that you agree that this does not deal with salvation, which is the topic of this thread. I could respond line by line to you, and go back over the same points (and I note that you are still trying to add new material in the conclusion), but then all we do is end up in longer and longer posts that become harder and harder to follow, and more and more disassociated from the topic of the thread.

As for kurios: Alexander was regarded as a (pagan) deity. The term was used to refer to pagan gods and demi-gods, among others. If we aren't to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "kurios", there is no good reason to be bothered by the pagan history of the *term* "Pontifex Maximus".

Again, you are ignoring both the usage of the term and history. If you wish to ignore all relevant facts, you can, of course, come to any conclusion that you wish, but once again, here are the facts:

- Kurios was not a title of the head of the pagan Roman religion, but a term of respect or acknowledgement of authority used in general for anyone in authority.

- Pontifex Maximus was a formal title given to, and used only for reference to the leader of the pagan Roman religion.

Your conclusions are valid only if one ignores all facts. Your conclusion would not hold up for a moment if any relevant facts are introduced. Why don't you call your leader "the Buddha"? It is a title from another religion.

If you wish to continue down this line, perhaps to avoid hijacking this thread, you may wish to start a new thread.

[Wondergirl]

"Hope is a theologically grounded notion, and I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it. Hope would have to be distinguished from optimism, which is supposing things will turn out well. Hope is daring to envision something that is beyond either optimism or planning. It is an articulation of a vision, and, as the Bible says, without a vision, the people perish... [Obama's hope] is grounded in a notion that what God intends is justice and mercy and compassion, even if that seems, under current circumstances, to be unrealistic." --Ted Jennings, professor of biblical and constructive theology, Chicago Theological Seminary

[Akoue]

You apparently are back into using strawman arguments - no one argued this. This is why you find that I don't always respond to everything that you post - much of it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Yeah, the bit you quote, and accuse of being a strawman, isn't an argument. I was summarizing 1Cor.3.5-10. You know, in order to get the "context" for what you quoted from later in ch.3.

So now it appears that you agree that this does not deal with salvation, which is the topic of this thread. I could respond line by line to you, and go back over the same points (and I note that you are still trying to add new material in the conclusion), but then all we do is end up in longer and longer posts that become harder and harder to follow, and more and more disassociated from the topic of the thread.

If you agree with me that 1Cor.3.12-17 doesn't deal with salvation, I wonder why you quoted it in your response to me. You claimed that it shows that 1Cor.4.5 isn't telling us not to render a verdict or judge one's own or another's salvation. It doesn't show that at all, as I've made quite clear. Something tells me that if you could have refuted anything I've said you'd have done so by now. I'm not adding anything new here; just explaining the Scripture you quoted.

Your conclusions are valid only if one ignores all facts. Your conclusion would not hold up for a moment if any relevant facts are introduced. Why don't you call your leader "the Buddha"? It is a title from another religion.

"All" the facts? I've provided facts, so I can't be avoiding "all" the facts.
Why didn't the NT call God "Buddha" instead of calling him "Ho Theos"? Why not call Christ "Buddha" instead of "Ho Kurios"? (These are rhetorical questions.)

If you wish to continue down this line, perhaps to avoid hijacking this thread, you may wish to start a new thread.

"Hi, Pot. This is Kettle. You're black."

Don't really see how I'm hijacking anything. Each of my posts has dealt with the Scriptures under consideration. I have, however, indicated why some of those Scriptures aren't on-topic. (I did mention it was an aside, and that you needn't respond, by the way.)

Now if you'd like to discuss Scripture that would be great.

[Akoue]

Howdy, Wondergirl.

That's a really nice quote. I agree with everything in it (for what that's worth).

(It's a pity about Rick Warren, though. Maybe Obama can bring him back from the dark side of the force. Though I'm not *hopeful* about that!)

[JoeT777]

"Hope is a theologically grounded notion, and I think that perhaps is especially true as Sen. Obama uses it. Hope would have to be distinguished from optimism, which is supposing things will turn out well. Hope is daring to envision something that is beyond either optimism or planning. It is an articulation of a vision, and, as the Bible says, without a vision, the people perish.... [Obama's hope] is grounded in a notion that what God intends is justice and mercy and compassion, even if that seems, under current circumstances, to be unrealistic." --Ted Jennings, professor of biblical and constructive theology, Chicago Theological Seminary

Yes, my hope and prayers are for one term. We can't afford the wholesale slaughter of the yet-to-be-born. I'm hoping for a real Christian presidency.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Yeah, the bit you quote, and accuse of being a strawman, isn't an argument. I was summarizing 1Cor.3.5-10. You know, in order to get the "context" for what you quoted from later in ch.3.

It formed part of your argument.

If you agree with me that 1Cor.3.12-17 doesn't deal with salvation, I wonder why you quoted it in your response to me.

Because the topic, as you yourself indicated is about salvation, and since the passage that you used to validate your argument does not deal with salvation when taken in context (as shown by this passage), your argument falls apart. Therefore the rest of your argument is irrelevant - unless or until you are able to show us how this has any bearing on salvation. Otherwise, it appears that you are now agreeing with me, and conceding the point.

"All" the facts? I've provided facts, so I can't be avoiding "all" the facts.

No, you were ignoring or misrepresenting key facts regarding the historic use or "kurios" and "Pontifex Maximus" (facts which I have summarized twice).

Why didn't the NT call God "Buddha" instead of calling him "Ho Theos"? Why not call Christ "Buddha" instead of "Ho Kurios"? (These are rhetorical questions.)

You don't know? Didn't you claim to be a professor? Then I am very surprised that you would even say so, even as a rhetorical question. I also note that you did not answer the question that I asked of you.

[Akoue]

It formed part of your argument.



Because the topic, as you yourself indicated is about salvation, and since the passage that you used to validate your argument does not deal with salvation when taken in context (as shown by this passage), your argument falls apart. Therefore the rest of your argument is irrelevant - unless or until you are able to show us how this has any bearing on salvation. Otherwise, it appears that you are now agreeing with me, and conceding the point.



No, you were ignoring or misrepresenting key facts regarding the historic use or "kurios" and "Pontifex Maximus" (facts which I have summarized twice).



You don't know? Didn't you claim to be a professor? Then I am very surprised that you would even say so, even as a rhetorical question. I also note that you did not answer the question that I asked of you.

Wow. Your logic does NOT resemble our earth logic.

It's interesting. I distributed a couple of threads in which you feature prominently to my students as a side project for extra credit. I said nothing about the threads or the participants, instructing them only to evaluate the arguments contained therein. Every single student who chose to participate found you to have committed a huge number of fallacies and rhetorical manipulations. Were they grading you themselves, every one said they would have given you a grade of F. And these were first semester freshmen. This leads me to believe that others reading this thread will be quite capable of coming to a reasonable evaluation of our exchange.

If you ever decide to say anything substantive about Scripture or my earlier posts I'll be only to happy to respond. Otherwise, I'll let others argue with you for a while.

[Tj3]

Wow. Your logic does NOT resemble our earth logic.

Ho hum - I guess if you don't have a good rebuttal, then your only option other than accepting the truth would be to lash out with abusive remarks about the person. The fact that you have resorted to this approach speaks volumes. This is also a logic fallacy (Appeal to ridicule, Personal attack)

BTW, as for comments about your so-called students (and so far nothing that I have seen would validate your claim to be a "professor"). Anyone can make such claims - talk is cheap. I also trust that if you claim to know anything about logic, you know that such an argument is also a logic fallacy (Appeal to popularity, Poisoning the well).

Before you criticize someone else's logic, you may want to get your house in order. What matters is when and if you put forward a position and then validate it from scripture.

[Wondergirl]

Yes, my hope and prayers are for one term. We can’t afford the wholesale slaughter of the yet-to-be-born. I’m hoping for a real Christian presidency.

JoeT

Many young moms are keeping their babies, not getting abortions. Obama will not increase the numbers of abortions. If anything, he will push personal responsibility.

[De Maria]

I am and now you, please pay attention.

Read the context of 1 Corinthians. To help focus your reading, why don't you tell me why, if no one is to judge, why then does Paul say.....

1 Cor 2:14-16
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
NKJV

Don't change the subject. Lets go back to what you posted. What does,
In fact, I do not even judge myself. mean?

What does:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes

Mean?

There's no getting around those verses. We are not to judge ourselves saved. Jesus will do that.

As for examining our conscience before communion. Yes, we must examine our conscience and make sure we are in a state of grace before we partake of the Eucharist.

Sincerely,