|
Post by michelle on Feb 6, 2007 16:23:42 GMT -8
10/05:
I noticed something about the opening of this letter that I have never given much thought to before. Paul calls the members of the church in Corinth, "those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy." I'm not sure why it struck me as hard as it did, but when I read it this time I couldn't stop staring at the words. I encourage you to read the words a few times and really think about what it means because we too are sanctified and called to be holy.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Feb 6, 2007 16:58:13 GMT -8
10/05:
This passage really jumped out at me as well. I think partially because of our Sunday discussion a few weeks ago on Holiness and Grace. I also liked the part about how we lack no spiritual gift because we have been enriched in every way.
For some reason, every time I read vs 17, I get a bit of a lump in my stomach. The phrase "lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it's power" really gets to me as well as the discussion of true wisdom and human wisdom.(1:17-2:5) I sometimes wonder if we try to use human wisdom to reach unbelievers. Apologetics often feels this way to me, which is why I wouldn't typically approach sharing my faith in that style. It feels foreign to me, but I know others for whom it comes very naturally. What do you think?
Hey Josh I was thinking about you as I read 2:6-16 and what you have shared recently about the Holy Spirit working in your life.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 6, 2007 16:59:20 GMT -8
10/05:
I thought about apologetics also when I read that portion. I find apologetics fascinating and I love listening to and partaking in discussions about it. But at the same time, I find that I typically have more questions than answers after a discussion and I always fear being able to say the right thing when sharing apologetics with others.
When I read Paul's reference to Isaiah 29:14, "the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate" really struck me. I thought to myself, no wonder I get so frustrated when I try to rationalize my faith. And to me, that's what God means by having faith like a child.
I definitely think there is value in apologetics and being able to rationalize one's faith. I remember hearing someone say one time, something to the effect of, the only way he believed was by the rational, scientific approach. Apologetics may be the thread that keeps someone holding on to the Christian faith. I don't think there should be that "faith feeling" without reason (as we have seen in other religions), nor reason without the "faith feeling". They both have their pros and I think it is part of becoming holistic.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:01:27 GMT -8
10/05:
A hearty 'giddy-up!' to that last line, Michelle, to use a reference from your favorite show (Seinfeld) heheh
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:02:24 GMT -8
10/05:
Hey Sarah,
I know we've discussed this before, and did make some progress, but hopefully this time around we can 'agree with one another' in the Lord more fully (another theme of this chapter) .
First off, the NIV in verse 17 is quite different than the King James, the New American Standard, and the NRSV. Instead of 'human wisdom' they read, respectively, 'wisdom of words', 'cleverness of speech', and 'eloquent wisdom'. So the emphasis in these translations is on the way things are said and not wisdom per se.
Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:16 need to be kept in perspective with everything else he says and with Scripture as a whole.
If we take Paul's statement in verses 17-18 and 2:5 to mean that he is saying reason (or rationality) should not be employed in the spreading of the Gospel, we immediately discover that Paul is a major hypocrite. He is the king of using rationale/ reason in defense of the faith.
Here are several passages in Acts describing his usual approach to spreading the gospel, to illustrate this. Notice all the verbage related to rational debate and argumentation:
Acts 17:1-4
1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ", he said. 4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.
Acts 17:11
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:17-20
17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus*, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean."
Acts 18:19
19 They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 18:27-28
27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Note the frequency of the following terms: reasoning, explaining, debating, proving, disputing, examining, refuting, arguing, and persuading. These verbs are the heart of the apologetic approach.
Elswhere in Scripture similar methods of communicating the Gospel are urged:
1 Peter 3:15-16
15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Luke 1:1-4
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Interestingly enough, probably the most powerful 'apologetic' passage in Scripture is found in 1 Corinthians of all places! 1 Corinthians 15 is based on the logical argument that if Christ has not been raised, then our faith is futile.
Furthermore, Paul can't mean it's flat out wrong to employ eloquence or human knowledge, because he (despite his humble statements) is quite eloquent in his writing and quite knowledgeable of pagan literature. He quotes Cretan and Greek poets and prophets (Titus 1:12, Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33) and uses their 'wisdom' as part of his arguments for the faith. The apostle John does the same, by using Greek philosophical concepts such as Logos to help rational Greeks get a handle on Christ's deity.
What is Paul really saying about human wisdom here in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2? He's not saying not to use it, he is saying that on it's own it can never replace God's own revelation. Human wisdom can only get one so far (and Paul rightly acknowledges that it can get one quite far: see Romans 1:20), but it can never bring salvation because salvation comes through the revelation of Jesus in the cross- the realization that God has gone beyond the realm of philosophy and has literally sent his son to die in the real world and vindicated him with miraculous signs. It is this miracle that is the basis of our faith, not human reason in a vacuum.
So, this passage isn't primarily about apologetics-- it is about the futility of finding God apart from special revelation. Apologetics is all about arguing persuasively that divine revelation has in fact occured. And this is exactly what Paul does constantly. If salvation and a knowledge of God could be attained just by thinking hard enough, then what was the point of Christ's death? It would be 'emptied of its power'!
Now, human wisdom is alright for what it's worth. Paul employs it frequently, as in:
1 Corinthians 9:3-12
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? 8 Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Notice here that Paul makes a rationalist argument for his rights, but then adds an even better argument-- that even special revelation (the Law) supports his apologetic.
Now, Paul also says that logic is not enough; displays of God's power are crucial as well.
Note how both rational and the miraculous are used in tandem in this passage:
Acts 19:8-12
8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. 9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.
11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
As a reminder, this verse sums up the fact that it is ultimately God who changes hearts, not our arguments, but nonetheless, he calls us to make the arguments anyway, so that He can use them:
Acts 28:23-27
23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 "Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."
Lastly, remember what Paul says later in 1 Corinthians 9:22b:
22b I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
"All things" meaning a performer of miracles, an apologist using pagan philsophy, a man nearly beaten to death displaying the marks of Christ in his flesh-- all to preach Christ crucified.
We should never rely on our eloquence, arguments, or miracles as our sole source of strength. Our strength is the foolishness of the cross, but we must use anything we can as a tool to spread this message.
*a place in Athens where philosophers met on a regular basis to debate
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:03:19 GMT -8
10/05:
As a side note: the cross was a stumbling block to the Jews because they expected a politically successful Messiah who would overthrow the Romans, and foolishness to the Romans because how could a condemned criminal be the only way to God? They were so reliant on their humanly devised ways of ascertaining truth that they were missing God's way of revealing Himself to us. Now, good apologetics is about convincing people that God has spoken and that God has revealed himself, as opposed to Human Reason which says we can find the truth on our own and we don't need His revelation.
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Feb 6, 2007 17:04:15 GMT -8
10/05:
i must say, when i read the section(s) on human wisdom/real wisdom i thought about apologetics too. the section really frustrated me. i've always thought that when possible we as christians should strive to be the most well informed people out there. whether it's biblically or secularly based. especially when it pertains to our faith, which seems like is most everything, especially in the culture we live in (evolution, philosophy, seperation of church and state, abortion, just war, gay marriage, poverty, stem cell research, etc., etc.). one of the things that i love, and feel like is a hallmark of our faith is that we put such a premium on truth no matter what the area. at first read i felt like this part in corinthians was kind of undermining that. then i started to think well he couldn't mean what it seems like he means. then i felt like i shouldn't be writing it off so quickly. then more frustration.
josh your "'human wisdom'? apologetics?" helped some. thanks
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:05:21 GMT -8
10/05:
I feel like I need to make something a little clearer.
We have to understand the audience to which he was writing- a mixed community of Jews (with their emphasis detailed scholarly legal minutae) and Gentiles (with their exaltation of philosophy). Paul is saying that neither of those 'systems' are going to get a person to God. What is going to get a person to God is the preaching about 'the Cross': ie, the fact that God vindicated Jesus by raising Him from the dead. Human philosophy can only get one so far. The Stoics and Epicureans and Platonists could only get so far and relied heavily on rhetorical tactics (eloquence of words) to wow their audience into thinking what they were saying must be true. But Paul is giving an apologetic for a Historical Event that blows both their philosophy and rhetoric and the Jewish speculations out of the water!!! This historical event can be argued logically (as is done elsewhere in 1 Corinthians and in the whole of the NT), and it is also attended to by miraculous signs (as we see in the Gospels and Acts). We should strive to emulate Paul in both of these ways- use of reason, openness to the miraculous. Does that help any more?
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 6, 2007 17:06:51 GMT -8
10/05:
Ancient cultures are said to be "shame-based" rather than "guilt-based" like our own. This distinction helps a modern reader (me at least) to "get" what Paul means by the foolishness of the cross (as well as 1 Cor 15:19 -- "of all people most to be pitied" if the cross was not followed by resurrection)
Apparently, honor was often considered more important than life itself. I wonder if the importance of honor and shame arose from the civic arrangements of the day: since the power of the state resided in a single person, it was critical for stability and legitimacy to ensure that this person received the very highest respect from everyone in that society. This meant that people would be expected to openly honor the king (or queen or chief or emperor); but it also made demands on the king's behavior: he would be expected to behave in a "regal fashion" to encourage and legitimize this respect, in a sort of ritual interplay. This practice would naturally repeat itself elsewhere in society, so that persons in authoritative positions would be treated with respect proportional to the significance of their role -- and they, in turn, were expected to demonstrate, through what in our culture would be considered arrogance and even cruelty, their high position. (When Christ spoke of the meek inheriting the earth, the audience surely thought this a ridiculous notion.)
Before hearing this distinction, I used to think of crucifixion as simply one among various extremely unpleasant ways one might die (completely awful, but not necessarily any "worse" than alot of other awful things). But in that society, it really was about the worst thing imaginable, because it was *designed* to be utterly degrading. The death sentence wasn't even the main point, nor was the physical pain -- it was a shame ritual, a carefully planned means of publically stripping the victim of significance, esteem and stature in society.
Any "king," let alone a god, who allowed himself to be treated in this way would be an obvious sham. Having suffered this ignoble fate, Christ could only be understood as a failure, a person of no significance whatsoever. Anyone who called himself a follower or worshipper of a crucified man would be beneath contempt. So to call this a "stumbling block" for the early church is no overstatement.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:07:31 GMT -8
10/05:
I think what Hume says here about attitudes in the ancient world is echoed by the Muslim/ Hindu/ and typical Buddhist responses to Jesus' death. Jesus is seen as a good teacher by all three of these religious perspectives, but his death is either flatly denied (as the Muslims claim) or is a source of perplexity. The Eastern religions can't understand how a god could suffer in this way, so ingloriously (especially considering he cried out in pain and showed his weakness). I have a great article from Time (Newsweek? I'll have to dig it out)which interviewed clerics from other faiths about what they thought of Jesus' crucifixion, and without exception they all found some offense in it.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Feb 6, 2007 17:08:39 GMT -8
10/05:
Hey Josh,
I am thinking over your responses, most of which I agree with. I think your last paragraph sums up a lot of my thoughts. I think it is really about a balance of the different tools God has given us to reach people. I just wonder sometimes if we lean to heavily in one direction, and tip over. In listening to stories of people coming to faith and my own as well. Discussion may have played a part in building information, but it was more of a revelation that brought faith to life. I can not think right now of anyone I have met personally who came to faith based only on a logical discussion. I think that there is a need for something to "click" internally that witnesses that what you are hearing is truth. I believe this to be the working of power that Paul talks about, not just miracles.
So you see, I may frustrate you, but I think we are not really so far apart in idea as it might seem. I also really respect your ability to reason your faith and your commitment to apologetics and to giving a good answer to the hope that is in you. I think it is another example of the diversity of the body of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:09:36 GMT -8
10/05:
I think I agree with everything you said there, so, yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page. I do think that parts of the Church have indeed focused too much on 'talk' over giving the 'power' of God room to breathe (isn't there a verse that says 'the kingdom of God is not just a matter of talk, but of power' or something like that). But then I can think of some Churches who have had a definite anti-intellectual bias that has been detrimental as well. If we're always talking ABOUT God we tend to neglect EXPERIENCING God in the here and now. That's a danger. Also, we must leave room for His mysterious ways.
I also just had a thought- when Paul was reasoning with the Jews, he was speaking to people who already had a relationship with God in many cases. So apologetics to them was just arguing that Jesus was the Messiah. They already had an internal witness.
The Greeks really did typically need some kind of intellectual bridge to begin the discussion about faith- and in particular about a personal, transcendant Deity. So, Paul uses rational argument (as in Acts 17) as well as demonstrations of the power of the Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:10:10 GMT -8
10/05:
Yes, Sarah, I certainly think I've been forced to my knees more than ever lately... forced to let the Holy Spirit search the 'deep things of God' for me, to let Him intercede in groanings that words cannot express. It's funny how some things you just can't learn until you're desperate enough.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2007 17:12:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2014 16:16:01 GMT -8
Read something in NT Wright's "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" today that reminded me of this thread:
"....the 'foolish' argument [Paul] mounted against the snooty Corinthians (one of his most spectacular pieces of rhetoric, and all the more so for being the climax of a letter declaring what a waste of time rhetoric was)..."
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 26, 2014 21:14:15 GMT -8
Some more from Wright on this:
"Paul made it clear again and again that there is a 'wisdom of this world' which turns out to be foolishness before God. This did not however leading to an anti-intellectualism (anything but!) or to a mere one-dimensional turning away from everything the world had to offer or to the kind of sectarian dualism which retreated into its own private sphere. Once more his creational monotheism meant that he could freely and gladly recognize the presence in the wider non-Jewish and non-Christian world plenty that was true, holy, upright, pure, attractive, of good reputation, virtuous, and praiseworthy. The follower of Jesus did not have to pretend none of the above existed. Rather, such things wherever they might be found were to be seen as signs of the handiwork of the good creator."
PFG page 380.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 12, 2015 11:10:57 GMT -8
Any fresh thoughts on these chapters anyone?
|
|