Maybe it all comes to how you define a "follower" since last I read Paul was against "following" any man outside of Christ.
Back in the beginning of the fog years, around '87 or so, Lynn and several others collaborated on a paper that has come to be known as the 37-page letter or document. This was the first public out-speaking against the Trustees, and asked the question, "Who should we follow?" As part of its introduction, it used the lines from the Sunday school song, "My Lord knows the way through the wilderness, All I need to do is follow..." This prompted me to do a word study on the idea of following, as indicated by the uses of mimeomai (to follow) and mimetes (follower) in the New Testament. The epistles do a very thorough job of describing who, how and why we should follow.
First, the word "mimeomai" means "to imitate". The Biblical meanings of "to follow" and being a "follower" refers, not primarily to obedience, but to imitation.
I Corinthians 4:15&16
"15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I [Paul] have begotten you through the gospel.
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [mimetes = "imitators"] of me."
The very first way that a person learns is as an infant, by imitating the actions and vocalizations of the people who come into its range of experience, usually its parents and siblings. Here Paul appeals to the Corinthians to imitate him the way children imitate their parents.
I Corinthians 11:1
"1 Be ye followers [mimetes = "imitators"] of me [Paul] even as I also am of Christ."
Once more Paul exhorts the Corinthians to imitate himself, and lets them know that in doing so, they will be imitating Christ, since he also is imitating Christ.
Ephesians 5:1
1 Be ye therefore followers [mimetes = "imitators] of God, as dear children:"
Again we see encouragement to Christians to imitate someone the way children imitate their parents, only in this case, we are to imitate God. As we read in Philippians 2:14&15,
"14 Do all things without murmurings and disputing:
"15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;"
As Christians, we are children of God, and we should act like it by imitating our heavenly Father. When we do so, we shine like lights.
I have more to post on this, but that's all I can do for the time being.
See? This stuff is what makes it so implausible that everything fits like a hand in a glove, every word is God-breathed, yada, yada.----"Follow me."/"Don't follow me." The contradiction is obvious.
Yep.
That's why I gave up trying to figure out what the Biblical doctrine on salvation is. Paul argues both sides of the issue sometimes contradicting himself within one passage. I finally figured that if I kept on trying to read his epistles and applying logic to discern what they meant, I was going to go bonkers. So I put it down and haven't read much since.
...I finally figured that if I kept on trying to read his epistles and applying logic to discern what they meant, I was going to go bonkers...
Logic is a powerful tool, but by itself, it can be every bit as misleading as any other system of thought. Logic is a set of rules whose purpose is, if used properly, to define "proof". But every logical argument is built on "self-evident" premises. If an argument's premises do not accord with objective reality, then the application of logic to those premises can only lead us into confusion and error.
Wierwille's definition of "salvation" is flawed in a number of ways. First, man is not, has never been, and will never be, a three-part creature: body, soul and spirit. Second, salvation is God making good on promises He originally gave to Israel in the O.T. The dispensationalist teaching that the Curch is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel severs Christianity from the promises of salvation, and indeed, even from the cross of Christ itself. There are other flaws that make trying to figure out what "salvation" means very, very confusing. But the confusion isn't in the Bible. It's in the things we were taught by Wierwille.
In Luke 18:18-30, the phrases "to inherit eternal life", "to enter into the kingdom of God", "to be saved" and "to receive everlasting life in the age to come" are all used synonymously. Looking at those things might help understand the things that Paul doesn't explicitly state.
I'm glad we are both members in particular of this great Body, Jerry!
Soo... where wuz I? Lessee, I think I finished Ephesians 5:1. Yeah... that's the ticket. We're ready to look at
Philippians 3:17-19
"17 Brethren, be followers together [summimetes = "imitators together or "joint-imitators"] of me [Paul], and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample [typos = "example"].
"18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
"19 Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)"
This exhortation to be imitators is more complex than those we have seen to this point. Here Paul exhorts the believers at Philippi, as a group, to be imitators of himself, and to watch out for people who walk the way he did, so that the believers can still imitate Paul by imitating the example of those people.
The parenthetical expression of verses 18 and 19 gives a description of people who do NOT walk the way Paul did, whose example we are NOT to follow. It lists four characteristics of these people: the result of their effort is wasted, they serve their own appetites, they are proud of things of which they ought to be ashamed, and they have set their minds on earthly rather than heavenly things. Whenever I read these verses, I can't help but think of the dance production of Athletes of the Spirit. TWI was very proud of something it ought to have been ashamed of.
Verses 18 and 19 contain a figure of speech known as "Last-First". This figure reverses the ordinary sequence of a progression in order to emphasize the final result of the progression. A person walking on this path begins doing so by giving more thought to the earthly aspects of things than to the heavenly aspects. Not paying attention to the true nature of his actions, he becomes proud of doing things that are really reprehensible. He becomes addicted to one or more of his own appetites, and in the end, all his efforts are wasted. WASTED! He sets himself against the effect of Christ's work on the cross. We do NOT want to imitate such people!
Thanks, waysider. "Food for critical thought and closer examination" indeed!
I think our attitudes toward Paul were skewed by Wierwille's attitude. As part of Wierwille's "God's Word as it hasn't been known since the first century" schtick, he had to explain how the understanding of God's Word had "failed" in the first century, and Wierwille pinned the blame on Paul's trip to jerusalem. Paul the apostle was a failure in taking the Word over the world, but Victor Paul was going to succeed where Paul the apostle failed. Wierwille made Paul out to be a collosal loser in order to make himself seem like a winner.
Love,
Steve
I think that's a bit of an exxaggeration. What I recall from my Way days is that Paul was generally lionized. Paul was the one to whom the Mystery was revealed. And, to be honest, the book of Acts generally depicts a shift in power from the original Twelve to Paul's ministry. If we regard it through the somewhat skeptical view of Source Criticism, we can discard that as Luke's bias.
But if you're going to stick to the authority of the Scripture, it's hard to read Acts and conclude that Paul's ministry wasn't the primary vehicle of the Lord's will for a significant period of time.
And I disagree with your assertion that Peter was the primary leader of the First Century Church. He was at the outset. But Acts and Gatalians also indicate a power shift from Peter's influence to that of James.
The controversy over whether the the Gentile converts should be circumcised was settled by an edict from James, not Peter.
(Acts 15:7 - 19)Pay particular attention to the authority with which James made the final decision. emphasis added.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day...
By that time, for whatever reason, Peter's position as the chief apostle had been eclipsed and James had effectively become the Bishop of the Church.
The fact that James word carried more weight than Peter's faith and understanding is also referenced in Galatians.
Galatians 2:12 - 13
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
I think it's against forum rules to throw a third quote in here, but I suggest you also re-read Acts 21, the story of Paul's arrival in Jerusalem. Verse 18 says Paul went unto "James and all the elders..." Peter wasn't even mentioned. Neither John, Mark, or any of the other Apostles.
Maybe they weren't there. But the record depicts James in charge of the Jerusalem Church. He told Paul what to do and seemed to be speaking as a man who had the power to smooth over the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem Judeans. There's no hint in James conversation with Paul that anyone else needed to be consulted.
No mention of running it by the Apostles. Just James setting conditions for Paul's acceptance.
CMan. It would be nice if that's the way it was and I believe that is God's will.
But to claim that the concept of the First Century Church having had leaders, both designated and de facto is purely a TWI notion is, imho, unrealistic.
The Scripture is full of references to Jesus having called out and separated the Twelve. He gave them a different name from the rest of the disciples. Why did he do that?
Or are you saying that never really happened?
Paul's epistle to the Corinthians recognizes the fact that there were factions among the believers based on differences among acknowledged leaders.
"I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas" Why did he write that?
Paul's opening to the Galatians deals with this rift by referring to James and Peter as men who "seemed to be pillars". This is a clear architectural analogy comparing these men to the pillars of a temple, the structural support for the building.
This language clearly indicates recognized leadership.
Similarly Paul's epistle to the Ephesians says that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20), and that the Lord gave these ministries to the church for its edification (Eph 4:11-15)
Was this simply self-serving language used by Paul to draw away followers?
If you want to claim that the writers of the New Testament were out of step with God's plan and that the book of Acts doesn't really depict what happened in the Church, that's one thing. But to dismiss these ideas as my "having been influenced by TWI" is not an honest approach to the problem.
You put a lot in there about what you assume I think.
None of it is close.
Except this-
But to claim that the concept of the First Century Church having had leaders, both designated and de facto is purely a TWI notion is, imho, unrealistic.
Which is the point I believe.
Something about serving more then leading was happening then,
You put a lot in there about what you assume I think.
None of it is close.
Except this-
Which is the point I believe.
Something about serving more then leading was happening then,
agreed? That was Jesus' sayings...
You miss the point. Just because Jesus exhorted his Apostles to have an attitude of meekness and service doesn't negate the fact that they were also given authority and leadership roles in the Church.
How else do you explain the stewardship of the believers' wealth and what happened to Ananias and Saphira?
Acts 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
If the Apostles were mere servants, who gave them the authority to receive and redistribute other people's monies?
Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Act 5:2 And kept back [part] of the price, his wife also being privy [to it], and brought a certain part, and laid [it] at the apostles' feet.
Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Act 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
Act 5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried [him] out, and buried [him].
Act 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
Act 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Act 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband [are] at the door, and shall carry thee out.
Act 5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying [her] forth, buried [her] by her husband.
If Peter was just a servant, why is he the one rebuking those other believers? Who gave him the right to do that?
CMAN, I respect your heart, but I humbly submit that your idealism is clouding your interpretation of the Scriptures.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
9
8
9
Popular Days
Aug 29
12
Aug 27
7
Aug 19
7
Aug 1
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 12 posts
Steve Lortz 9 posts
waysider 8 posts
Broken Arrow 9 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2010
12 posts
Aug 27 2010
7 posts
Aug 19 2010
7 posts
Aug 1 2010
4 posts
Popular Posts
roberterasmus
Hi Para, As for "most people" do you mean "most people who've gotten out of TWI" or just "most people"? The evangelical (scholarly) world (for what it's worth) pretty much read Acts as if it was doc
Gen-2
Well okay, I was reading this and started laughing. Just last night I had a discussion with my Nurse. She was talking about her God and how her preacher gave a mighty teaching,... On - whatever. But
Steve Lortz
Back in the beginning of the fog years, around '87 or so, Lynn and several others collaborated on a paper that has come to be known as the 37-page letter or document. This was the first public out-speaking against the Trustees, and asked the question, "Who should we follow?" As part of its introduction, it used the lines from the Sunday school song, "My Lord knows the way through the wilderness, All I need to do is follow..." This prompted me to do a word study on the idea of following, as indicated by the uses of mimeomai (to follow) and mimetes (follower) in the New Testament. The epistles do a very thorough job of describing who, how and why we should follow.
First, the word "mimeomai" means "to imitate". The Biblical meanings of "to follow" and being a "follower" refers, not primarily to obedience, but to imitation.
I Corinthians 4:15&16
"15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I [Paul] have begotten you through the gospel.
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [mimetes = "imitators"] of me."
The very first way that a person learns is as an infant, by imitating the actions and vocalizations of the people who come into its range of experience, usually its parents and siblings. Here Paul appeals to the Corinthians to imitate him the way children imitate their parents.
I Corinthians 11:1
"1 Be ye followers [mimetes = "imitators"] of me [Paul] even as I also am of Christ."
Once more Paul exhorts the Corinthians to imitate himself, and lets them know that in doing so, they will be imitating Christ, since he also is imitating Christ.
Ephesians 5:1
1 Be ye therefore followers [mimetes = "imitators] of God, as dear children:"
Again we see encouragement to Christians to imitate someone the way children imitate their parents, only in this case, we are to imitate God. As we read in Philippians 2:14&15,
"14 Do all things without murmurings and disputing:
"15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;"
As Christians, we are children of God, and we should act like it by imitating our heavenly Father. When we do so, we shine like lights.
I have more to post on this, but that's all I can do for the time being.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Yep.
That's why I gave up trying to figure out what the Biblical doctrine on salvation is. Paul argues both sides of the issue sometimes contradicting himself within one passage. I finally figured that if I kept on trying to read his epistles and applying logic to discern what they meant, I was going to go bonkers. So I put it down and haven't read much since.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Logic is a powerful tool, but by itself, it can be every bit as misleading as any other system of thought. Logic is a set of rules whose purpose is, if used properly, to define "proof". But every logical argument is built on "self-evident" premises. If an argument's premises do not accord with objective reality, then the application of logic to those premises can only lead us into confusion and error.
Wierwille's definition of "salvation" is flawed in a number of ways. First, man is not, has never been, and will never be, a three-part creature: body, soul and spirit. Second, salvation is God making good on promises He originally gave to Israel in the O.T. The dispensationalist teaching that the Curch is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel severs Christianity from the promises of salvation, and indeed, even from the cross of Christ itself. There are other flaws that make trying to figure out what "salvation" means very, very confusing. But the confusion isn't in the Bible. It's in the things we were taught by Wierwille.
In Luke 18:18-30, the phrases "to inherit eternal life", "to enter into the kingdom of God", "to be saved" and "to receive everlasting life in the age to come" are all used synonymously. Looking at those things might help understand the things that Paul doesn't explicitly state.
I'm glad we are both members in particular of this great Body, Jerry!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Soo... where wuz I? Lessee, I think I finished Ephesians 5:1. Yeah... that's the ticket. We're ready to look at
Philippians 3:17-19
"17 Brethren, be followers together [summimetes = "imitators together or "joint-imitators"] of me [Paul], and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample [typos = "example"].
"18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
"19 Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)"
This exhortation to be imitators is more complex than those we have seen to this point. Here Paul exhorts the believers at Philippi, as a group, to be imitators of himself, and to watch out for people who walk the way he did, so that the believers can still imitate Paul by imitating the example of those people.
The parenthetical expression of verses 18 and 19 gives a description of people who do NOT walk the way Paul did, whose example we are NOT to follow. It lists four characteristics of these people: the result of their effort is wasted, they serve their own appetites, they are proud of things of which they ought to be ashamed, and they have set their minds on earthly rather than heavenly things. Whenever I read these verses, I can't help but think of the dance production of Athletes of the Spirit. TWI was very proud of something it ought to have been ashamed of.
Verses 18 and 19 contain a figure of speech known as "Last-First". This figure reverses the ordinary sequence of a progression in order to emphasize the final result of the progression. A person walking on this path begins doing so by giving more thought to the earthly aspects of things than to the heavenly aspects. Not paying attention to the true nature of his actions, he becomes proud of doing things that are really reprehensible. He becomes addicted to one or more of his own appetites, and in the end, all his efforts are wasted. WASTED! He sets himself against the effect of Christ's work on the cross. We do NOT want to imitate such people!
All for now.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I think that's a bit of an exxaggeration. What I recall from my Way days is that Paul was generally lionized. Paul was the one to whom the Mystery was revealed. And, to be honest, the book of Acts generally depicts a shift in power from the original Twelve to Paul's ministry. If we regard it through the somewhat skeptical view of Source Criticism, we can discard that as Luke's bias.
But if you're going to stick to the authority of the Scripture, it's hard to read Acts and conclude that Paul's ministry wasn't the primary vehicle of the Lord's will for a significant period of time.
And I disagree with your assertion that Peter was the primary leader of the First Century Church. He was at the outset. But Acts and Gatalians also indicate a power shift from Peter's influence to that of James.
The controversy over whether the the Gentile converts should be circumcised was settled by an edict from James, not Peter.
(Acts 15:7 - 19)Pay particular attention to the authority with which James made the final decision. emphasis added.
By that time, for whatever reason, Peter's position as the chief apostle had been eclipsed and James had effectively become the Bishop of the Church.
The fact that James word carried more weight than Peter's faith and understanding is also referenced in Galatians.
I think it's against forum rules to throw a third quote in here, but I suggest you also re-read Acts 21, the story of Paul's arrival in Jerusalem. Verse 18 says Paul went unto "James and all the elders..." Peter wasn't even mentioned. Neither John, Mark, or any of the other Apostles.
Maybe they weren't there. But the record depicts James in charge of the Jerusalem Church. He told Paul what to do and seemed to be speaking as a man who had the power to smooth over the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem Judeans. There's no hint in James conversation with Paul that anyone else needed to be consulted.
No mention of running it by the Apostles. Just James setting conditions for Paul's acceptance.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
JB, I think your post shows how Steve and waysider put it.
Being affected by the way....
"a shift in power" never happened
I just don't believe there was any one person God focused on or 12.
More like it was all there for the hungry as it still is today.
And not to nullify anything you said.
But to consider how twi/vp handled the scripture.
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
CMan. It would be nice if that's the way it was and I believe that is God's will.
But to claim that the concept of the First Century Church having had leaders, both designated and de facto is purely a TWI notion is, imho, unrealistic.
The Scripture is full of references to Jesus having called out and separated the Twelve. He gave them a different name from the rest of the disciples. Why did he do that?
Or are you saying that never really happened?
Paul's epistle to the Corinthians recognizes the fact that there were factions among the believers based on differences among acknowledged leaders.
"I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas" Why did he write that?
Paul's opening to the Galatians deals with this rift by referring to James and Peter as men who "seemed to be pillars". This is a clear architectural analogy comparing these men to the pillars of a temple, the structural support for the building.
This language clearly indicates recognized leadership.
Similarly Paul's epistle to the Ephesians says that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20), and that the Lord gave these ministries to the church for its edification (Eph 4:11-15)
Was this simply self-serving language used by Paul to draw away followers?
If you want to claim that the writers of the New Testament were out of step with God's plan and that the book of Acts doesn't really depict what happened in the Church, that's one thing. But to dismiss these ideas as my "having been influenced by TWI" is not an honest approach to the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You put a lot in there about what you assume I think.
None of it is close.
Except this-
Which is the point I believe.
Something about serving more then leading was happening then,
agreed? That was Jesus' sayings...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
You miss the point. Just because Jesus exhorted his Apostles to have an attitude of meekness and service doesn't negate the fact that they were also given authority and leadership roles in the Church.
How else do you explain the stewardship of the believers' wealth and what happened to Ananias and Saphira?
If the Apostles were mere servants, who gave them the authority to receive and redistribute other people's monies?
If Peter was just a servant, why is he the one rebuking those other believers? Who gave him the right to do that?
CMAN, I respect your heart, but I humbly submit that your idealism is clouding your interpretation of the Scriptures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
idealism? well, doubt that
nevertheless, i'm done with this...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.