Not forgetting your personal disclaimer, are we talking about the same scientific population that always insists "the debate is closed," anyone who's not on board needs to have his grants stopped, "hide the decline," and many other examples of close-mindedness? The day most scientists are any more open-minded or independently-thinking than anybody else, they'll be in a pine box.

Yes or no. Was Paul judging when he identified Alexander as someone he wanted God to repay?>

Yes, although IMO this account is a bit too sparse to support either yours or my position. We don't know much about Alexander or what he did.

If Alexander claimed to be representative of God and opposed Paul's teaching, then he might rightfully be called a false teacher (judging within). Possibly, Alexander attacked Paul in a personal way (e.g. he accused Paul of lying and having evil motives). Either way, Paul's response is justified.

~~~~~

<OCF: 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among [them]. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you."

Yes or no. Was Paul judging when he referred to unbelievers as examples of/analgous to lawlessness, darkness, Belial (Satan), idols, and uncleanness?>

No. Paul is not making accusations against unbelievers here, he is describing their spiritual condition. Because their condition is different (in fact, opposite) that of believers, they should not be bound together.

Also, since Paul is speaking to believers here, he doesn't need to explain why lawlessness, darkness, etc., are attributes of unbelievers -- he may assume that is understood by his audience.

~~~~

Now, if you want Paul's statement about how he *does* approach unbelievers, just go a few verses earlier:

<<<2 Cor 6:3-7>> -- We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. 4Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; 5in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; 6in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; 7in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left>

Note how Paul is concerned that the ministry is not discredited, and that he willing to not only endure persecution, but respond to it with purity, understanding, patience and kindness.

<Isn't it clear the judging Paul is referring to is the practice of disfellowshipping? Isn't it clear this is a rather narrow usage of the word "judge"?>

It's mostly about disfellowshipping (i.e. removal of the wicked from the assembly of believers), but partly about living together with a world of immoral people -- Paul is not telling us here to dissassociate with unbelievers: <I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10<<not at all meaning the people of this world>> who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case <<you would have to leave this world>>>.

1 Cor 5 argues from the specific to the general. It starts with specific instances of sinful behavior within the church, goes on to explain how such behavior has a corrupting effect on the church, and concludes that those who behave thus should be expelled.

As Paul often does, he finishes with the general principle: namely that it's not our concern to judge those outside the church, because God does that -- our job is to judge within. This is the point I've been making.

<OCF: Isn't it also true we are told elsewhere NOT to associate with the unbelievers, < "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you."> >

Yes, although we may disagree about what it means to "not associate". I don't think it means "regard them as enemies to be attacked".

<OCF: Isn't that clear then this passage does not say all there is to say about judging and in fact must be understood in its immediate context?>

When did I say this passage says all there is to be said about judging? I think the general comment in v 12 means exactly what it says, and I don't see how the context argues against my understanding of it.

What exactly to you make of verses 12-13? Do you think the bit about leaving the judgment of unbelievers to God is somehow limited by the idea of disfellowshipping? Are there are other contexts where God's judgment of unbelievers isn't enough, and that Christians should be helping with it?

~~~~

I think *scripture and reason* support my view as follows:

If someone claims to be a representative of God (i.e. either a believer or one who falsely professes to be), then that person *by virtue of that claim* may be expected hold scripture as authoritative. Since the accuser and the accused both accept the common ground of scriptural authority, the judgment may be made based on that authority.

But if someone doesn't claim to be a representative of God (like maybe an unbelieving scientist), then that person cannot be expected to hold scripture as authoritative. Therefore, throwing scripture-based accusations at the unbeliever serves no purpose, except to cause both sides to become entrenched in their positions.

~~~~~

<OCF: In some sense, yes.>

<OCF: The early church was 100% Jewish converts to Christianity.>>

Yes, but they converted from what to what?

Which would you say is true about these Jewish converts:

(A) After their conversion, they no longer considered themselves to be Jews.

(B) After their conversion, they considered themselves Jews with a better understanding of the laws and prophecies of Judaism, whereas the religious leaders had distorted the laws and neglected the propheices.

I go for (B) myself. I think I can make a case that Jesus and Paul would likewise. The church was founded and populated by Jews who never stopped being Jewish. That explains why your comment <Jews are not members of the church. Next?> seemed so bizarre to me.

Well, I could respond to this in a number of ways...

(1) I *am* defending Christianity from the impression (that might otherwise be created here) that Christians are hostile, ignorant about science, and presume to know the secret motives of others (among other charges).

(2) If you thought scientists were being unjustly attacked by a professing Christian, who would you defend?

Christianity's central piece is a partition (the most forceful possible) from Judaism's central piece, namely the Mosaic Law. But there's a lovely internal paradox there and some "proprietary constraints", heh. >

You cite that Jesus did away with the Mosaic Law.

Here's my understanding of the theology concerning the Law: Jesus fulfilled the law, attaining righteousness, and he provides a way for others, through faith in him, to take part in that righteousness. Hence, he provides a righteousness apart from the law (indeed, doing away with the law).

However, those not "in him through faith" do not have this righteousness apart from the law, and are thus still judged under the law.

I don't see the work of Christ causing a "split-off" *from* Judaism. After all, if indeed it was announced and foretold in the Jewish scriptures, then the work of Christ is an intrinsic and essential part of Judaism, whether the majority of Jewish accept it or not.

Maybe this is the point that needs to be clarified: When I speak of "Judaism", I refer to what it is according to the scriptures as told by the (presumed) prophets of God, from Moses up through Jesus and the Apostles. Conversely, you might be speaking of Judaism in terms of how it is *practiced* by the majority of Jews.

You speak of a "partition", and indeed there is one. But isn't there always a partition in any religion between its scriptural basis and the way it is practiced? Certainly within Jewish history, there are a number of cases where there was a divide between the two.

3And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance.

4Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.

The Throne and Worship of the Creator
5Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God;

6and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind.

7The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle.

8And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME."

9And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever,

10the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

<Maybe this is the point that needs to be clarified: When I speak of "Judaism", I refer to what it is according to the scriptures as told by the (presumed) prophets of God, from Moses up through Jesus and the Apostles. Conversely, you might be speaking of Judaism in terms of how it is *practiced* by the majority of Jews.> Well said mostly - though of course I also speak of Judaism as it is theorized; instructing in great detail how it *should be* practised etc. ...

But there are indeed several partitions there, both between and within; so as you indicate there are several issues waiting and aching to be clarified. Correctly formulated by you imo, and indeed in need of further explication as to not be allowed to be interpreted manyfold.

A LOT of work you have done, and certainly enough typing for a day; I need to let things said sink in and evaluate.

Especially since there were and *are* multiple partitions within and in between Judaism as well as Christianity.

You are right about the complexity of the 'partition' issue, and perhaps I could clarify a bit more to explain what I mean by judging *within*.

During the days of the early church, the Jews were in turmoil over the question of "Who is a Jew?" (It seems that even today Jews still ponder this question).

Yes, there was partition between the Christian Jews (who followed Jesus and the Apostles) and the non-Christian Jews (who more or less followed the mainline religious leadership).

But they didn't wear badges to identify their affiliation. It wasn't like there was this building where the Christians were inside and the non-Christians were outside. Nearly all of them believed in God and thought their view represented God's view. Each judged those with the opposing view as false teachers.

Naturally, a separation process took place. Where Christian Jews gathered, they would expel those who didn't agree with the Christian view, either in terms of what they preached or in terms of how they behaved. I am sure that the non-Christian Jews did likewise to the Christians. The passage in 1 Corinthians 5 that I've quoted focuses on behavior, but there are other passages that deal with rejecting false teachers, such as

<Doctrine: <<Titus 3:9-11>> 9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.>

and

<Example: << 1 Tim 1:18-20: >> 18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.>

That is, Christians are NOT called to make judgments against unbelievers who speak or behave in a manner inconsistent with Biblical doctrine. Of course not -- they are unbelievers -- they don't think the doctrine has any authority over them.

It IS the calling of Christians to present unbelievers with the Gospel, with all due respect, humbleness, and kindness, and warn them regarding their spiritual condition before God. And if the *unbelievers* respond with hostility, *then* the Christians can console themselves that the are being persecuted for the sake of Christ.

It is from this perspective that I am critical of <OhioChessFans>'s attack on scientists (who for the sake of OCF's purposes are unbelievers). He has everything backwards. If there is any hostility, it should be coming FROM the unbelievers.

I have no idea how he could make that mistake if he ever read this:

<<<Romans 12:14-21>> Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited. 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord.

20On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.>

<YouRang: Paul is not making accusations against unbelievers here, he is describing their spiritual condition. Because their condition is different (in fact, opposite) that of believers, they should not be bound together.>

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.

For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter,

and upon this rock I will build my Church,

and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;

In an *analogous* way, no.

Here, I think, is where we differ. Do you think there is anything the Church can do to win the world's approval? Certainly a lot of churches seem to be trying very hard to do that, to no avail.

Why is it ok for unbelieving scientists who don't know jack about religion to spout all kinds of crapola about it--but not ok for Christians to criticize so-called scientists? (I'm sure the answer is that we are expected to turn the other cheek! You will admit that's very hard to do.) But I don't see how it would be wrong for us to disagree with what scientists say, or to expose a hoax when we discover one, or to speak out against actions which we believe to be dishonest or corrupt.

I thought the church was to represent Christ, approval or not. Approval is not the objective, nor is it to be expected. Representation is the objective. But I'm convinced that if we approach the world lacking humility, love, kindness, respect, forgiveness -- *particularly* toward those who seem to be enemies -- then Christ would say we are NOT representing him.

So where exactly do you think we differ?

I gather that you agree with OCF's approach of accusing scientists of dishonesty based on (1) a specific literal interpretation of Genesis and (2) presumed knowledge their secret evil motives.

If so, then THAT is where we differ.

<Why is it ok for unbelieving scientists who don't know jack about religion to spout all kinds of crapola about it--but not ok for Christians to criticize so-called scientists? (I'm sure the answer is that we are expected to turn the other cheek! You will admit that's very hard to do.)>

Well, you may have noticed that I have not defending scientists who make claims that science disproves religion (and I think there are very few that do this). In fact, I've said that they're just as wrong as Christians who claim that religion disproves science.

However, as I've pointed out before, I think scientists might have a legitimate excuse for making their "science disproves religion" claims: All they have to do is cite the many Christians [like <OhioChessFan> and maybe yourself] who AGREE with them that the Bible is incompatible with science!

If indeed you feel persecuted by science, what do you think the Bible tells you to do (whether it's "very hard" or not)? Do you seek revenge? Or do you return evil with good?

<But I don't see how it would be wrong for us to disagree with what scientists say,>

Did I ever argue that we must always agree with scientists?

<...or to expose a hoax when we discover one,>

First of all, what scientific "hoaxes" have Christians exposed? Practically all of the scientific hoaxes cited by anti-science Christians were exposed by the very scientists (e.g. evolutionists) who supposedly benefited from the hoax.

Secondly, did I ever say that Christians shouldn't expose a hoax?

<...or to speak out against actions which we believe to be dishonest or corrupt.>

I hate to be repetitive, but did I say somewhere that Christians can't speak out against dishonest or corrupt actions?!

BUT I WOULD SAY THIS: If you are going to make an accusation, you had better be prepared to defend it. And you better have more to offer than knowledge of secret of evil motives, bald assertions, strawman arguments, and the assumption that you are right just because you're a Bible believer.

<Getting back to the origins of this whole pow-wow... Stephen J. Gould (an unbeliever by his own statements) wrote at length about the way scientific errors--discovered and corrected by scientists--continue to persist in science textbooks, sometimes for generations. Not fair to blame "science" for that (for instance, the persistence of Ernst Haeckl's faked-up embryological drawings--to be found in some textbooks to this day, but exposed 100 years ago). Science admits Haeckl was a fraud, but the textbook publishers seem to take no notice.>

So what is your point? You speak about scientific errors that make their way into textbooks. You mention that those errors were discovered and corrected by scientists. You mention that some errors still appear in textbooks.

I am with you on the correlation matter. I think your perfectly valid interpretation is prety much at odds with common sense. Are these kids discouraged from becoming scientists? Are these kids 100% free of the typical teenage rebellion? Are you suggesting such a high % of independent thinkers will naturally end up in the sciences? Anyway, I think you're kidding yourself if you don't recognize some of the influence that an education in the world of science has on people.

<It's pretty arrogant for you to take the position that you are a seeker of truth who through sheer effort and enlightenment found your way to the one single truth, when you were born into a Christian family in an overwhelmingly Christian nation.>

Arrogant. And you're the one assigning yourself to the independent thinker group? As for your suggestion, I found truth. I don't apologize for that.

<Let's face it, your beliefs today are entirely dependent on your childhood indoctrination.>

Let's not face it, but that's fine. I literally walked away from home when I left the religious beliefs of my family. I recognize some people won't see much distinction between various Christian groups.

<If you were born in Iran, you would almost certainly not be a Christian today. >

You're wrong.

<As you note yourself, <disbelief in the Judaeo-Christian God has a noticeable geographical component as well.> There are plenty of people around the world of other faiths who are just as convinced as you that they are correct, and that their positions are also founded on reason and a genuine pursuit of the truth. What do you say to them, and what makes you so sure you've got it right?>

I say to them <God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.">

<YouRang: In an *analogous* way, no. >