Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Ohio has already said it fairly well. There is more than one declaration in scripture concerning judgment, even of brothers. And others require that we do judge each other. To declare this one as if it is the only one that applies is most disingenuous.
As for being judges of other believers, what exactly were they doing in 1 Corinthians concerning the one living in open immorality if not judging? You have chosen only those passages that restrict judgment. If you think you have exhausted the topic with those few mentions, then you should redo your research. If you know better, then . . . well . . . you know better and should speak as if you do.
Do you suppose that all those Judaisers that Paul kept fighting were simply unregenerated Jews mucking-up the works? No. They were mostly brothers with a claim (real or imagined) of representing the HQ in Jerusalem. He judged them harshly. Even mentioning some by name, and noting that some were serving their bellies. These were not outsiders. They were standing as authorities for God in the midst of the church (by their own claim).
And if Lee's teachings are worthy of note, then they will be found elsewhere. There are no special teachings and benefits/blessings reserved for those who follow certain teachers. The very assertion that there are is itself a falsehood and evidence of a wrongful claim of spiritual authority.
|
I do not declare this verse in James as if it is the only verse that applies to judgement. To conclude that I do is indefensible. What I do claim is that James makes a very clear boundary, probably the clearest wording in the NT. The boundary delimits how far your judgment can go. The word “disengenuous” has the meaning of false or hypocritical. I find this accusation that my post was disengenuous insulting and unwarranted. This is now the second time I have had an issue of your ease with using derogatory terms towards my posts, although the previous case was on another forum.
I opened this thread in post #1 stating my opinion and my position. Never once did I imply I had given a thorough discourse on the issue, rather I opened the floor for others to share their own views and stated that I was open to being convinced. Yes I am well aware that this is a complex issue, there is the case of excommunication, there is the case of Paul dealing with Judaizers, there is the appeal to Caesar. I chose out a passage that I felt best identified the boundary to judgement, because you asked what is the boundary. You did not ask for a comprehensive review of every verse and case in the NT.
That said, my position is based on my reading of all of these cases. This is why I said we are supposed to judge sin. The brother in Corinth was always referred to as a brother, he was never judged, the sin was judged. In 1Cor 5:3 Paul said he had judged “concerning him” he didn’t say he had “judged him”. The excommunication was compared to the purging out of leaven from the house. Again, remove the sin from your midst, yet at the same time the purpose was for the brother to be saved :that the spirit may be saved”. You cannot conclude that “leaven” referred to the brother because the church is urged to welcome him back once he had repented. By contrast when one says that “WL was not a true servant of God” this may be understood that his name is not in the book of Life or it may be understood that He was a false apostle. Are we judging the brother or his work? It is my position that there is a distinction and that to judge his work is reasonable, but we have no place judging the brother.
You also refer to Paul’s word in Romans
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Causing division is an action that can be judged, to say that someone doing this is not serving Christ is not equivalent to saying they are not a servant of Christ. It could be that they are deceived and think they are serving Christ.
I had an experience this weekend that I think is very illustrative. I was in a meeting with the principle when another teacher came in and said that a computer was missing. The computer was being used by one of my students. She was in his room making up missing work, but when she left he noticed the computer was missing. We viewed the images from the cameras and we could see that one minute before leaving the room she had the computer, and was the only student in the room along with the teacher and then she left and the computer was gone. The evidence was pretty clear that she had taken the computer. What was very clear was that there was no one else that could have possibly taken it and she was clearly the one responsible for it. So I was sitting in a room with the Dean who is responsible for school security and the teacher that was in the room who is responsible for the computer. I was there because I was her teacher, the term in this case is “Parenti en loci” I was there on behalf of her parents to do what I could to support her. So I suggested that she might have taken the computer to finish her work. The marking period ended the day she took the computer and she was currently failing, but I had told her that if she completed the work by Monday I would change her grade to a pass. Perhaps she doesn’t have computer access at home and the only way she could finish the work was to take the computer. As a result the principle gave her amnesty until Monday, if it turned out that she was trying to finish her work she was not going to make an issue of it.
The point is this, I don’t know the hearts, only Jesus does, and this can have a big influence on how someone is judged. Judging that the girl took the computer is not the same thing as judging that she is a thief. Also, deciding if someone merits amnesty or not is not for me to decide it is for the Principle (or in the case of WL it is for the Lord) to decide.
On this forum we may have saints who are concerned with “breaking the bonds” as you say, we may have those who are concerned with their own salvation, we may have those who are concerned with the salvation of others, but none of us is the judge, and it is not for us to issue judgements. We are not a jury deciding if WL was a true servant of God, that judgement is for Jesus alone.