I don't. I just rebuke them.
It is a rebuke of your characteristics.
The judging thing you are wrong about. You judge a tree by the fruit it bears.
I think that pretty much covers the rest of your post.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is it Christ-Like to Insult?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
I don't. I just rebuke them.
It is a rebuke of your characteristics.
The judging thing you are wrong about. You judge a tree by the fruit it bears.
I think that pretty much covers the rest of your post.
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
When debating, I always try to address the topic rather than the person or personality. Addressing the person does nothing to answer the actual arguments presented.
I don't think such harsh language is always o.k., but I certainly think there is a time and place for it. In fact, I think you are getting your "nice" Christianity from the modern climate of political correctness and postmodernism....not from the Bible.
I write about this at some length in my book...(which a major publisher is looking at right now...I could use prayer
)http://www.amazon.com/dp/1493777963/?tag=baptis04-20
Let me respond to your points...
That isn't true. Jesus called believers "Satan" (Matthew 16:23), as well as faithless, hard hearted and twisted in various locations (e.g. Matthew 17:17)
I think this is a serious exegetical error on your part brother. Jesus was 100 percent God/100 percent man. To parcel out actions according to his divinity or his humanity, is simply not to be done.
Here is the important point. Jesus became in every way like us. That means, listen, that Jesus' actions were all 100 percent righteous, according to the standards given for man's actions If Jesus got angry, and did something that would not have been o.k. for us, He would not have fulfilled the law as was necessary.
Further, we see similar behavior from the followers of Christ. Paul rebuked Peter, and lamented that he wished the Judaizers (circumcision party) would emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12).
If we extend this beyond believers, you have even more harsh behavior. Stephen verbally attacking his accusers, Paul calling Elymas names before striking him blind...
I don't think this is legitimate. I also don't think "insult" is the best word to use. If you call someone an "idiot" for being an "idiot" that is not an insult, it is just a descriptive term. Hypersensitivity is not something the Bible endorses.
Brother, this is just exegetically inaccurate. The text nowhere says that the apostles were "harsh." The apostles questioned the authority of others, who were not with them, to participate in the same ministry. Jesus did not rebuke them, He just informed them. Nowhere does it say "rebuke."
Brother, you are very incorrect here. Blasfemia refers to slander, or untrue speech about someone (just like blasphemy, by the way). We blaspheme God when we say things about Him which are not true. Ephesians 4:31 and Colossians 3:8 has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I would suggest to you that you are reading words like "love" with a Feeling Driven, postmodern, politically correct mindset...you should really read my book.
This is one of those Ecclesiastes 3:1 moments. There is a time for everything under the sun. Typically, the Bible calls for harshness for the deliberately unrepentant (brother or no), while those who just need to be better informed
are treated more gently. I would suggest to you that this is referring to calling people "fool" or "idiot" because of misunderstanding, rather than wickedness. Otherwise Christ Himself did not "fulfill all righteousness" as required by the law.
No, I am afraid not. You are bringing a bias to the text, and seeing what you want to see. I am certainly not in favor of always being harsh. But I AM in favor of always being plain spoken, and I AM in favor of being harsh with false teachers, and those who deliberately undermine the work of the Gospel in their unrepentance, and stubbornness of heart...
As John has pointed out -- it meant an adversary rather than a proper noun like Satan.
I saw what John posted. I believe John is wrong...you do understand that he disagrees with the translators of nearly every major English translation today. Greek does not demand the definite article before the proper noun in every instance. That is, unless you learned your Greek from Jehovah's Witnesses.
Luk_22:31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat...
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
:thumbsup: Exactly what I was saying. In the verse in question, both Satan and Peter are rebuked by Jesus with one fell swoop of the non-articled noun. Very succinctly and well put, HD.
You're welcome. I agree that people insult others to show their own superiority.
No, "tender ninny" is name calling, not rebuking. When you use nouns like this to denigrate someone you are speaking to their character, not their actions.
Rebukes involve speaking to the direct actions or words of the offender. So a rebuke would have been, "John, you are wrong on this because...."
If you disagree, please define "insult" and "rebuke" for me, something you have yet to do. (In fact, at one point you seemed to say they were the same.) Tell me when it is right to call someone a name without it being an insult. How do you determine when someone is being insulting and when they are rebuking?
This is not at all the same thing as judging someone's motives, which is what you were claiming you could do. So according to you, "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but Luke2427 looketh on the heart."
So you concede the field to me in the other points I brought up. Thank you!
I don't have a problem with name calling. Jesus and the Apostles and the Old Testament prophets called people names.
But if you are more comfortable with the term, "rebuke," then I'll use it instead of "name calling."
As Havensdad pointed out, it seems that you have pink colored glasses through which you read the Scriptures.
The Word of God is FULL of the fiercest language ever spoken by the godliest people who ever lived.
Is that an excuse to be a jerk? No.
Gentle to the humble- fierce to the proud. Love good and hate evil. That's the Bible formula.
Or, John you are a tender ninny because of these actions (fruits)... it is the same thing.
Insult: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly <doggerel that insults the reader's intelligence>
— in·sult·er noun
— in·sult·ing·ly adverb
1re·buke
transitive verb \ri-ˈbyük\
: to speak in an angry and critical way to (someone)
re·bukedre·buk·ing
Full Definition of REBUKE
1
a : to criticize sharply :
Suits me.
Or it is.
But if you say it isn't...
Talk about abusing the text!
This has to do with physical appearance. It is not saying that you could not tell David was a good man by following him around. It is saying that God is not looking for the strongest looking person but the person with the best heart.
Man tends to not look upon the heart. God always looks upon the heart. The lesson of the text is that we ought to look at a man's heart instead of his outward appearance.
I don't know what other points you brought up. List them succinctly and I will gladly address them.
I have to admit you are more subtle than Luke. Knowing absolutely nothing about the influences on my life, you say I am getting my nice Christianity from theologically unacceptable sources such as political correctness, postmodernism, etc.
Dude, I grew up in the '50's and '60's, with a climate so different from yours it would be difficult for you to understand. If you want a non-Biblical source for my view on this thread, it is that I was raised to believe name-calling (insulting) is not only wrong but childish. My parents were strict about that. We were never allowed to call anyone, much less other believers, such things as fool, idiot, moron. We were not allowed to use the "n-word" or anything else for blacks but "Negro," which was the usual non-offensive word in those days.
Also, I live in Japan, in which public discourse is polite to the extreme. This language has five levels of politeness, depending on who you are talking to.
If it will be a help to the body of Christ, I hope the major publisher puts it out.I write about this at some length in my book...(which a major publisher is looking at right now...I could use prayer
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1493777963/?tag=baptis04-20
You and I have given our views elsewhere on the thread about Satan.
Concerning your Matt. 17:17 quote, I can make the reply that He was not calling the disciples names (nouns), but making a point about their entire generation--I think He was pointing out that their generation was not what they should become as His disciples.
Actually, that's not my point. I made the point that Christ could say some things we cannot (surely you agree?), and I gave an example. I then logically extended that to calling people names (insulting them). I made the point that in Matt. 22:42-46 He was claiming to be Christ and Lord, something we are not. (I know you agree that context is key in exegesis.) In the continuation of that same dialogue in ch. 23 is when he insulted the Pharisees. No one else is Christ and no one else is Lord.
I also made the point that He was the Founder of the Pharisees' religion, and thus had a right to address the Pharisees that way, a right we don't have, which I still think is a valid point.
Again, Christ on earth could do and say some things we cannot. For example, if I were to enter a Buddhist temple and overthrow the table he was counting his ill-gotten gains on, I would be thrown into prison. It would be considered a simple crime, not a religious action, since I have no legal authority in that temple. However, Christ as Lord of the Sabbath and the Temple could cast them out of His "Father's house," a point He made very specifically.
The thread is about insulting, not rebuking. Yes, Paul rebuked Peter, but he did not insult him.
Sorry, I don't think that applies to the OP.
Again, Jesus specifically forbade calling people an idiot (raca).
So you don't think total rejection of a ministry, and halting that ministry, is harsh?
Again, I was born in 1951. I'm still not sure what postmodern is, and I'm certainly not politically correct.
But about blasfemia, if it doesn't mean "insult" (as well as your other definitions), then koine had no word for insult.
Sorry, Christ did not give the delineation you did. He did not say, "But sometimes it's okay to call someone an idiot."
I'm in favor of being plain spoken too at the proper time, just not in favor of insulting. I told a yakuza gangster boss he was going to Hell once. Is that plainspoken enough for you? :smilewinkgrin: But I didn't call him a fool.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've spent 32 years preaching the Gospel in a Gospel-resistant country, preached in a Muslim country, counselled yakuza gangsters out of the gang. So yeah, I'm a "tender ninny," a sissy, right? Do you feel good about yourself, sitting there anonymously somewhere in America, calling me names? Builds your self esteem to call an old man names, doesn't it? Feels great, right?
Actually, I don't think it makes much difference.
Satan = adversary.
Adversary = Satan.
Note, in the following verses how Satan actually would "sift" Peter.
What kept Peter from failure?
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
The point i am attempting to make is that John is correct - the lack of the definite article in the Greek text is the indication as to whether Jesus was actually calling Peter, Satan, or reflecting upon Peter already being able to be influenced by Satan and therefore and adversary.
It matters so very little that "every translation...," because the English would make a very awkward rendering without adjusting the translation.
However, frankly, the meaning doesn't change one way or the other.
There is a far greater argument to be shown as applicable to the discussion of insult or rebuke.
I do not know of any Scripture scholar that considers Christ insulting Peter in the statement, but as rebuking him.
I would suggest that rebukes can be made toward believers in the assembly, but insults have no part in any manner in the speech at any time.
I have these as some principles that I have followed:
1) The "strong" rebuke from one believer to another should not be done in private. In the Scriptures the "strong rebuke" involves the assembly taking discipline upon an unruly member who is in violation of the assembly founding documents of faith and standards.
2) The Scriptures NEVER indicate that a believer is to rebuke another believer in private, but when a believer is found in error - two are to go to that person and attempt reconciliation.
3) Some would suggest that Paul's rebuke of Peter is an example, however Peter's sin was evident to the whole assembly, and Peter being a "super authority" over all assemblies (as an apostle was) it was important that another apostle bring the rebuke. Because the infraction was before the whole assembly, then the rebuke also needed to be before the whole assembly. That ALL know the truth and no "hidden agenda" could be assumed nor the situation gossiped.
4) Rebuke is NOT the same as judgement and insult. Look at the point of contention reported by Jude. Not even Michael pronounced blasphemous judgement toward the devil.
James 4:
Matthew 5:
Is there EVER a time when insults are "love?"
Rebuke can certainly be made out of love and concern for the reconciliation and betterment of that person and by extension the whole assembly.
What did the very bother of the Lord Jesus Christ state concerning this?
James 2:
However, Who has at any time actually proclaimed insult upon them self?
Seriously, would any believer truly insult the very temple of the Holy Spirit? Do not the Scriptures state that is how we are to regard ourselves? How do you actual insult yourself if you love yourself? Again the Scriptures clearly say we are to love others as we do ourselves.
By some on this thread, they speak volumes of the love they have for their neighbor (neighbor being a near kinsman and in the current discussion should be considered first other believers and by extension even all unbelievers).
Then what is it that the believer is to be like?
Look at Paul's statement to the assembly at Colossi in the third chapter:
It doesn't mean to discipline with insults or even rebukes.
I must say that some of the responses on this thread are most alarming.
I admit that in the heat of posting, I am most weak in this matter. And am still having to learn when to just drop a matter and let the folks think they have won.
To any who would account that I have posted insult rather than rebuke, I humbly make sincere apology. I do not doubt that there are some who could point out areas in which I too have "crossed the line."
Satan = adversary.
Adversary = Satan.
Note, in the following verses how Satan actually would "sift" Peter.
What kept Peter from failure?
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
The point i am attempting to make is that John is correct - the lack of the definite article in the Greek text is the indication as to whether Jesus was actually calling Peter, Satan, or reflecting upon Peter already being able to be influenced by Satan and therefore and adversary.
It matters so very little that "every translation...," because the English would make a very awkward rendering without adjusting the translation.
However, frankly, the meaning doesn't change one way or the other.
There is a far greater argument to be shown as applicable to the discussion of insult or rebuke.
I do not know of any Scripture scholar that considers Christ insulting Peter in the statement, but as rebuking him.
I would suggest that rebukes can be made toward believers in the assembly, but insults have no part in any manner in the speech at any time.
I have these as some principles that I have followed:
1) The "strong" rebuke from one believer to another should not be done in private. In the Scriptures the "strong rebuke" involves the assembly taking discipline upon an unruly member who is in violation of the assembly founding documents of faith and standards.
2) The Scriptures NEVER indicate that a believer is to rebuke another believer in private, but when a believer is found in error - two are to go to that person and attempt reconciliation.
3) Some would suggest that Paul's rebuke of Peter is an example, however Peter's sin was evident to the whole assembly, and Peter being a "super authority" over all assemblies (as an apostle was) it was important that another apostle bring the rebuke. Because the infraction was before the whole assembly, then the rebuke also needed to be before the whole assembly. That ALL know the truth and no "hidden agenda" could be assumed nor the situation gossiped.
4) Rebuke is NOT the same as judgement and insult. Look at the point of contention reported by Jude. Not even Michael pronounced blasphemous judgement toward the devil.
"But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”"
5) The Scriptures state very clearly that insults are not to be a part of the believer's interaction with another believer.
James 4:
11 Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
Ephesians 4:
31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
And what is the attitude the Lord Jesus Christ demands of the believer toward unbelievers? Insults? Did I actually read that as the exalted position that some of the BB have posted?
Matthew 5:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Now, in what manner does any believer have the right to disavow this statement of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Is there EVER a time when insults are "love?"
Rebuke can certainly be made out of love and concern for the reconciliation and betterment of that person and by extension the whole assembly.
What did the very bother of the Lord Jesus Christ state concerning this?
James 2:
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Has not every believer rebuked them self - often over a matter of weakness?
However, Who has at any time actually proclaimed insult upon them self?
Seriously, would any believer truly insult the very temple of the Holy Spirit? Do not the Scriptures state that is how we are to regard ourselves? How do you actual insult yourself if you love yourself? Again the Scriptures clearly say we are to love others as we do ourselves.
By some on this thread, they speak volumes of the love they have for their neighbor (neighbor being a near kinsman and in the current discussion should be considered first other believers and by extension even all unbelievers).
Then what is it that the believer is to be like?
Look at Paul's statement to the assembly at Colossi in the third chapter:
12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.
Lest someone misunderstand, the word "admonishing" means to exhort, to warn, to counsel as one who knows the ropes of the vessel can give instruction as to what should be done in the storms.
It doesn't mean to discipline with insults or even rebukes.
I must say that some of the responses on this thread are most alarming.
I admit that in the heat of posting, I am most weak in this matter. And am still having to learn when to just drop a matter and let the folks think they have won.
To any who would account that I have posted insult rather than rebuke, I humbly make sincere apology. I do not doubt that there are some who could point out areas in which I too have "crossed the line."
It's easy for them to call others names like that. I am not presently in Canada either. Just north of where I am a Muslim gunman rode by on a motorcycle and shot to death a guard sitting in front of a church. It was for no reason other than they hate Christians.
It is sad when one has to endure hatred from both within and without evangelical Christianity, much less his own Baptist brethren. I think that the "real ninnies and sissies" are those that would never come to these mission fields because they feel to comfortable in their theological armchairs sitting behind a keyboard judging others.
Yet Jesus did say:
"Whosoever does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple."
The Great Commission also has never been rescinded.
Well, you are getting them from somewhere...and it is not the Bible.
He was still calling them faithless and perverse (twisted). Calling someone "perverse" is no better than calling them "stupid."
That doesn't matter. The only thing that Christ could say, that we could not, is factual assertions about Himself. EVERYTHING that Christ did, was righteous, according to the standards that you and I are judged by. If Christ did it, while in the flesh, it was righteous and permissible for us to do it. He had to become like us, "in every way."
Not at all. If Jesus utilized His authority to do things which are not moral for other men to do, then it can hardly be said that He became like us in every way. It certainly cannot be said that He fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law for me, since those actions would not be righteous for me, according to you.
Not at all. First, any follower of Christ could have turned over the tables in the temple, and it would have been perfectly righteous. We see OT saints doing things like this...things WORSE than this, in fact. Jesus became "100 percent man". He did not utilize divine authority to turn over the tables. He did it as a righteous man, living out a righteous life in our place, and fulfilling the law.
Telling people to go emasculate themselves (people who claimed the name of Christ), is pretty insulting.
Actually its not Raca. Its Moros. Raca is used of the council....
And if that statement is ripped out of its context, then we have to consider that Jesus would be a hypocrite. He would also not have "fulfilled all righteousness", because He himself called people this very name...
Mat 23:17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?
Rather than think Jesus is a hypocrite, or that He did something that would be sinful (and thus, worthy of "hellfire"), I think we should take the verse in its context...Jesus is speaking of specific culture issues, and not anyone who calls another person "moros" (idiot).
Not in the same way as insulting. There is no indication in the text that this is how it went down. Your imposing it.
When you interpret words like "love" and "kindness" to mean "nice," you are interpreting those words differently than they were used in the first century.
Sure it does. Hubridzo.
No, He just did it. Jesus is no hypocrite. He became like us, fulfilled all righteousness. He is the perfect standard of morality.
I do not consider using descriptive terms insults. If someone is a fool, and you call them a fool, that is an accurate statement, not an insult. If I make things up, like, "your mothers so fat...", that would be an insult...
quantumfaith
Active Member
Would you kindly show by Scriptures at what point Christ gave permission to insult anyone?
Particularly, how spinning an insult is an expression of love.
Then do the same for believers.
Would you kindly show by Scriptures at what point Christ gave permission to rebuke any believer other than in such as way as would lead to edification, correction and warning drawn from experience and Scripture principle?
Particularly, how spinning a rebuke can be Scripturally done without love toward believers and regard that the same rebuke is not able to be laid at your own feet?
I have searched for permission for decades - haven't found even one verse that makes such a warrant for believers to engage.
Look at my previous post for more particular Scriptures that in part express what I consider the language of a believer towards all humankind should example.
According to Squire you are not a fundamentalist. See the thread "Fundamentalist?"
Which is why so many of us despise modern fundamentalism. They are the CHAMPIONS of this kind of thing.
Yes, yes, yes... What a hero you are!!! Pardon us all while we swoon!!
Don't pull your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back so vigorously, ok?
This is another characteristic many of us are accustomed to from the ranks of IFB. I have never met a group of people who praise themselves more. (yes, yes, not all of them, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah...)
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps it would seem that some desire to make the argument that accepting of some standard established by a person is warrant to disregard what some other assembly has established as their standard.
What Scriptures are found that allows folks to be critical of a pastor of another assembly - outside of doctrine and/or moral problems?
Others may not agree with what that assembly views as Godly Christ-likeness in areas of personal appearance, conduct, associations...
However, I have not found Scriptural warrant to be critical of them, nor who they have chosen to lead them.
It is that assemblies business, and no one outside of the assembly has any authority to be critical.
Folks note: If a pastor is found in doctrinal error and/or moral failure and is unresponsive to correction, rather they being intrenched in unrepentance, then actual truth is to be documented and proof published that others be warned.
In the fundamental threads, I showed two examples of this being done.
I would offer this observation: Rather then expressing gratitude that he wasn't hurt, and that he is taking time to be a witness and encourager in an area of persecution, there occurs criticism in what there is no Scriptures showing such expression(s) is(are) appropriate Godly righteous indignation(s).
I dare say, that for the most part, the IFB leaders I have known personally, who have every reason to be "puffed up," are/were some of the most humble men I knew. They expressed wonder that God had given such unmerited favor to consider them as worthy of the work.
In contrast, I rarely met a SBC leader (be it at the association level or national) that was not "self important" in the power they could wield. I did meet some, but not often.
Admittedly, I haven't had a lot of extensive contact with the SBC leadership(s) for nearly 40 years, so I would hope that the indictment would not stand valid in the current, but from what I have read of some of the fighting between conservative and liberals (who want to claim the title of moderate), not much has changed.
It would also be applicable to the AofG and other charismatic groupings, the Amish, the Methodists, the ...
- Status