Is it Christ-Like to Insult?

[John of Japan]

Various people on the Internet and even here on the BB have felt free to used insulting language towards some group of people or another and then claim that Christ did so, therefore Christians can and should. They’ll say something like, “Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, fools, blind, serpents and vipers (Matt. 23:13-33), so it’s perfectly okay to call Christians these or similar names (idiot, moron, etc.).”

I completely disagree with this. It is not okay for believers to call people names based on what Jesus said.

1. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees—lost people. He never spoke to believers this way, or even to people who claimed to be following Him but were possibly not.

2. Jesus was speaking as Lord, not as an example to believers. (See the context at the end of Matt. 22.) He said many things we cannot or should not say, such as “I came not to judge the world but to save the world” (John 12:47).

3. Jesus was also speaking as the Founder of the Jewish faith, rebuking the current leaders of that faith who had taken the religion in a terrible direction. We are not the founders of the Christian faith and have no right to insult others who claim the name of Christ.

4. When the disciples of Jesus were harsh towards people not of their group but yet who claimed His name, He rebuked them (Luke 9:49-50).

5. The practice of insulting people is rebuked by Paul in several places, such as Eph. 4:31, Col. 3:8, 1 Tim. 6:4. The Greek word used by Paul is blasfemia, which is the root word for our English word “blasphemy,” but has a wider range of meaning than the English word in that it can mean insulting another human as opposed to blaspheming God. So insulting people is wrong.

6. Christ Himself forbade calling a brother in Christ "fool" or "idiot" (raca) in Matt. 5:22b--"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

I’m positive there are many other relevant passages, but I’m going to stop here, because the point should be obvious.

 

[just-want-peace]

Various people on the Internet and even here on the BB have felt free to used insulting language towards some group of people or another and then claim that Christ did so, therefore Christians can and should. ----------- I’m positive there are many other relevant passages, but I’m going to stop here, because the point should be obvious.

Excellent points; but I'm afraid the "Yeah, but"s are gonna be coming soon. :tear: Pity!

 

[John of Japan]

Excellent points; but I'm afraid the "Yeah, but"s are gonna be coming soon. :tear: Pity!

I felt I had to try! :saint:

 

[InTheLight]

It is not okay for believers to call people names based on what Jesus said.

1. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees—lost people. He never spoke to believers this way, or even to people who claimed to be following Him but were possibly not.

John, I do agree with you....but....and here comes...what about when Jesus rebuked Peter for saying he thought it ridiculous that Jesus would have to be crucified? I refer to Matthew 16:21-23. Just a few verses beforehand Peter said that Jesus was the Son of God and Jesus called Peter a rock. But here we see:

21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

BTW, this is the only instance I can think of that would contradict item #1 (of all items) in your post.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I do agree with you....but....and here comes...what about when Jesus rebuked Peter for saying he thought it ridiculous that Jesus would have to be crucified? I refer to Matthew 16:21-23. Just a few verses beforehand Peter said that Jesus was the Son of God and Jesus called Peter a rock. But here we see:

21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

BTW, this is the only instance I can think of that would contradict item #1 (of all items) in your post.

This is a good point. It brings up the difference between an insult and a rebuke. I believe a rebuke to be when a specific sin is dealt with, while an insult is a word applied to the character of the person being insulted, rather than their deeds. So Jesus was rebuking Peter here, not insulting him.

Furthermore, consider the word "Satan." It is a name for the fallen angel who leads the demons, true, but it is also a normal Greek word meaning "adversary." In almost every case where it refers to Satan (capital "S") it has a definite article in the Greek--"The Satan, the adversary." This means the one and only, the pre-determined adversary, the Devil.

However, in the case of Peter in all three Synoptics, there is no definite article, meaning that Jesus was calling Peter "an adversary," not "The Satan." Hopefully this clears things up.

 

[Revmitchell]

However, in the case of Peter in all three Synoptics, there is no definite article, meaning that Jesus was calling Peter "an adversary," not "The Satan." Hopefully this clears things up.

Just a side question:

Under the strongs number (G4567)it suggests that there is a definite article.

So why do you say there is not and how is that they could be wrong.

I am just asking

Σατανᾶς
Satanas
sat-an-as'
Of Chaldee origin corresponding to G4566 (with the definite article affixed); the accuser, that is, the devil: - Satan.

 

[John of Japan]

Just a side question:

Under the strongs number (G4567)it suggests that there is a definite article.

So why do you say there is not and how is that they could be wrong.

I am just asking

While Strong's does have the definite article in the English, as you say, I was looking at the Greek NT, not a lexicon or Strong's. In all three Synoptics the usual Greek definite article is left off in the statement of Jesus to Peter, where it almost always occurs elsewhere. It is true that the major translations all have "Satan" there about Peter, and the usual scholars say that Jesus is calling Peter by the proper name of the devil. But because of the Greek construct, I believe Jesus was just calling Peter "adversary."

The word was originally Hebrew, and it occurs in the OT as simply "adversary" and not Satan in 1 Sam. 29:4 (and other passages), where it is used by the Philistines referring to David.

 

[Luke2427]

Various people on the Internet and even here on the BB have felt free to used insulting language towards some group of people or another and then claim that Christ did so, therefore Christians can and should. They’ll say something like, “Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, fools, blind, serpents and vipers (Matt. 23:13-33), so it’s perfectly okay to call Christians these or similar names (idiot, moron, etc.).”

I completely disagree with this. It is not okay for believers to call people names based on what Jesus said.

1. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees—lost people. He never spoke to believers this way, or even to people who claimed to be following Him but were possibly not.

He called Peter, Satan.

He also called his disciples a faithless and perverse generation for their failure to cast out a demon.

Paul had some choice words for Peter and the Corinthians and the Galatians.

We could go on and on.

2. Jesus was speaking as Lord, not as an example to believers. (See the context at the end of Matt. 22.) He said many things we cannot or should not say, such as “I came not to judge the world but to save the world” (John 12:47).

That's a claim without a warrant. You don't get to say we imitate here in these areas that I like but in those areas that I don't like I'll cherry pick them to fall into another category.

Your selection is arbitrary.

Peter picked up on his Lord's example and followed it as we see clearly in the book of Acts. Paul did too.

The rule is grace to the humble and law to the proud. We are merciful and gracious in the way we deal with broken people. We are to be fierce in our dealing with arrogant, self-righteous people who impede Kingdom progress.

This sissified, limp-wristed Christianity you advocate is not the Christianity of the Bible.

The Old and New Testament is filled with the godliest of people employing the fiercest of language against those who impede Kingdom progress.

3. Jesus was also speaking as the Founder of the Jewish faith, rebuking the current leaders of that faith who had taken the religion in a terrible direction. We are not the founders of the Christian faith and have no right to insult others who claim the name of Christ.

Paul was not the founder either and he, Peter and Jude had some fierce words for these Jews.

4. When the disciples of Jesus were harsh towards people not of their group but yet who claimed His name, He rebuked them (Luke 9:49-50).

That he rebuked them for this particular misspeak is no indication that he never intended for them to be cutting again.

There were specific reasons why he rebuked them and they were not because he NEVER wanted them to be cutting.

5. The practice of insulting people is rebuked by Paul in several places, such as Eph. 4:31, Col. 3:8, 1 Tim. 6:4. The Greek word used by Paul is blasfemia, which is the root word for our English word “blasphemy,” but has a wider range of meaning than the English word in that it can mean insulting another human as opposed to blaspheming God. So insulting people is wrong.

That this does not mean what you claim is plainly seen in the fact that Paul himself cut people to the quick many times.

6. Christ Himself forbade calling a brother in Christ "fool" or "idiot" (raca) in Matt. 5:22b--"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The point here is that all are sinners and all of us need a savior. Our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees and since we have all had UNWARRANTED hatred for our siblings we all need a Savior.

I’m positive there are many other relevant passages, but I’m going to stop here, because the point should be obvious.

What is obvious is that you are abusing the Scriptures in an effort to castrate the church and remove from it every ounce of boldness that it so desperately needs in this hour.

No one is for going around calling people names willy-nilly. But to call something that is ignorant what it is; to call something evil and vile what it is- NOTHING could be more biblical.

 

[John of Japan]

He called Peter, Satan.

I dealt with that.

He also called his disciples a faithless and perverse generation for their failure to cast out a demon.

I missed this one. You have a point. But he was still Jesus, and we aren't.

Paul had some choice words for Peter and the Corinthians and the Galatians.

Insults or rebukes?

That's a claim without a warrant. You don't get to say we imitate here in these areas that I like but in those areas that I don't like I'll cherry pick them to fall into another category.

I "get to say" whatever I want. You don't "get to say" what I can and can't say. I'll say exactly what I believe.

You didn't even look at the context like I suggested, did you?

Peter picked up on his Lord's example and followed it as we see clearly in the book of Acts. Paul did too.

Rebukes or insults?

The rule is grace to the humble and law to the proud. We are merciful and gracious in the way we deal with broken people. We are to be fierce in our dealing with arrogant, self-righteous people who impede Kingdom progress.

And you're the one who gets to judge who impedes Kingdom progress, right?

Rom. 14:4--Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

James 4:12--There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

This sissified, limp-wristed Christianity you advocate is not the Christianity of the Bible.

The Old and New Testament is filled with the godliest of people employing the fiercest of language against those who impede Kingdom progress.

You conveniently ignore many passages which teach gentleness, such as: 2 Tim 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient..."

Paul was not the founder either and he, Peter and Jude had some fierce words for these Jews.

Yes, the Jews, not believers.

That he rebuked them for this particular misspeak is no indication that he never intended for them to be cutting again.

There were specific reasons why he rebuked them and they were not because he NEVER wanted them to be cutting.

You pontificate a lot without giving Scripture.

The point here is that all are sinners and all of us need a savior. Our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees and since we have all had UNWARRANTED hatred for our siblings we all need a Savior.

So there is such a thing as "warranted hatred" in your lexicon?

What is obvious is that you are abusing the Scriptures in an effort to castrate the church and remove from it every ounce of boldness that it so desperately needs in this hour.

This is an absolutely absurd statement.

No one is for going around calling people names willy-nilly. But to call something that is ignorant what it is; to call something evil and vile what it is- NOTHING could be more biblical.

I disagree that insult is okay when it is aimed at Christians.

Apparently I hit a nerve.:tongue3:

 

[Luke2427]

I dealt with that.


I missed this one. You have a point. But he was still Jesus, and we aren't.
Insults or rebukes?
I "get to say" whatever I want. You don't "get to say" what i can and can't say. You didn't even look at the context like I suggested, did you?

Rebukes or insults?

If the only difference is the heart with which one gives it, I don't see why it matters. You can't see my heart and I can't see yours.

The fact is that Paul, Peter and Jude called people twice-dead plucked up by the roots, children of the devil, etc, etc, etc...

Some are going to see that as insulting. I can see why. You can too I am sure.

And you're the one who gets to judge who impedes Kingdom progress, right?

Yes. We are all called upon to make these judgments. It is called the pursuit and employment of discernment. Those who err we are to rebuke before all that they may be ashamed.

Absolutely. I am the judge and you are to be the judge as well.

Rom. 14:4--Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

This has to do with PASSING judgment- not MAKING a judgment.

James 4:12--There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

This has to do with PASSING judgment- not MAKING a judgment.

You conveniently ignore many passages which teach gentleness, such as: 2 Tim 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient..."

No I don't. I beleive in them with all my heart. But you want to cherry pick them and ignore all the others.

None of those gentleness passages mean that there is never a time to be fierce and hard.

They all have to do with body life and I am for that with all of my heart.

I believe we ought to seek to live peaceably with all men. But it is not always going to be possible. That's the thing you ignore.

You ignore Paul withstanding Peter to his face and Paul telling pastors to rebuke those who err before all men (rebuke them SHARPLY is what the Word of God says).

There is a time for gentleness and we better capitalize on it. It is evil NOT TO.

Our DEFAULT position, particularly in the body life of the church and with the broken hearted ought to be GENTLENESS.

But when it comes to the self-righteous person who divides the body of Christ- we mark him and condemn him in the fiercest possible way.

It is equally ungodly to fail to do this.

Yes, the Jews, now believers.
You pontificate a lot without giving Scripture.
So there is such a thing as "warranted hatred" in your lexicon?

HEAVEN'S YES!!!!

Have you READ the BIBLE???????????????????????????

 

[John of Japan]

If the only difference is the heart with which one gives it, I don't see why it matters. You can't see my heart and I can't see yours.

The fact is that Paul, Peter and Jude called people twice-dead plucked up by the roots, children of the devil, etc, etc, etc...

Some are going to see that as insulting. I can see why. You can too I am sure.

Lost people or believers? My OP is about insulting believers, not "children of the devil."

Yes. We are all called upon to make these judgments. It is called the pursuit and employment of discernment. Those who err we are to rebuke before all that they may be ashamed.

Absolutely. I am the judge and you are to be the judge as well.

Scripture?

This has to do with PASSING judgment- not MAKING a judgment.

This has to do with PASSING judgment- not MAKING a judgment.

Wrong.

No I don't. I beleive in them with all my heart. But you want to cherry pick them and ignore all the others.

See, you simply can't stop being insulting, can you? To say someone is "cherry picking" Scripture is an insult, and it is unwarranted. I assure you that I make every effort to interpret every Scripture in context, according to the original languages. For you to say I am "cherry picking" is then judging my motives, something you cannot do, are not capable of doing.

None of those gentleness passages mean that there is never a time to be fierce and hard.

Forgive me, but I've never seen you as gentle, ever here on the BB, not one time.

I believe we ought to seek to live peaceably with all men. But it is not always going to be possible. That's the thing you ignore.

If you believe it, why don't you do it? You are virtually always combative here on the BB with those who don't see things your way. You are being so here, saying things like "you don't get to."

You ignore Paul withstanding Peter to his face and Paul telling pastors to rebuke those who err before all men (rebuke them SHARPLY is what the Word of God says).

I have clearly distinguished between insult and rebuke. I believe in sharp rebuke. I don't believe in insult.

There is a time for gentleness and we better capitalize on it. It is evil NOT TO.

Chapter and verse?

Our DEFAULT position, particularly in the body life of the church and with the broken hearted ought to be GENTLENESS.

I agree.

But when it comes to the self-righteous person who divides the body of Christ- we mark him and condemn him in the fiercest possible way.

It is equally ungodly to fail to do this.

Chapter and verse?

HEAVEN'S YES!!!!

Have you READ the BIBLE???????????????????????????

Yeah, in several different languages. So, where are we told to hate believers and insult them?

The Greek word miseo, for "to hate," occurs 38 times in the NT, and not one time, NOT ONE TIME, does it refer to how believers should hate one another. In fact, such is condemned: 1Jo 2:9--He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thanks for posting this John and being willing to subject yourself to the abuse which was sure to come. There is plenty of ugliness, hatred, and vitriol to spare for those who go against the grain.

This topic is the sole reason I have virtually stopped posting here. Most threads ignore the issue and turn into personal insults, innuendoes, and implications within the first 2-3 posts of a thread.

It is one thing to disagree with a position, and quite another to make it personal. Instead of intelligently pointing out problems with a position we read things like:

'Have you ever read the Bible?'
'How far did you make through school before you dropped out?'
'What planet are you posting from?'
'What else would you expect from a liberal/socialist?'

And so on and so on

It has nothing to do with rebuke or calling out errors. It has all to do with trying to win an argument by making a brother look foolish.

That is, without a doubt, an unchristian form of disputation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

John, I do agree with you....but....and here comes...what about when Jesus rebuked Peter for saying he thought it ridiculous that Jesus would have to be crucified? I refer to Matthew 16:21-23. Just a few verses beforehand Peter said that Jesus was the Son of God and Jesus called Peter a rock. But here we see:

21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

BTW, this is the only instance I can think of that would contradict item #1 (of all items) in your post.

Jesus is the omniscient God. He knew Peter's heart. Not one of us here can make that claim.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Is it Christ-Like to Insult?

In short no it is not. we are commanded in fact by Jesus to be perfect.

Matthew 5:48

King James Version (KJV)

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I am doing a complete audit of my spiritual life through studying the Sermon on the Mount. In it, Christ states some very trans formative things. but lets get to the heart of the problem shall we. Like it or not John, you wear a target bulls eye on your person ......basically because of who you are & what you represent & unfortunately because of your family, right. So anyone who is on a tare, a mission, a crusade to denounce the Fundamentalist Baptist Movement, well you become the poster boy.

If you care to get to a deeper understanding, then take serious stock in what your critics are saying .....not about you personally, but about the movement you are so connected to. Many have been hurt by it.....and I mean seriously hurt & continue to be hurt by it. So we have to adjust ----that includes everyone.

The more challenging question is, "how do we try to remain pure through all of this? What is God calling us to and how is he working in our lives.

I keep going back to Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God

 

[John of Japan]

Is it Christ-Like to Insult?

In short no it is not. we are commanded in fact by Jesus to be perfect.

Matthew 5:48

King James Version (KJV)

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Very good statements here. Thank you for your input.

I am doing a complete audit of my spiritual life through studying the Sermon on the Mount. In it, Christ states some very trans formative things. but lets get to the heart of the problem shall we. Like it or not John, you wear a target bulls eye on your person ......basically because of who you are & what you represent & unfortunately because of your family, right. So anyone who is on a tare, a mission, a crusade to denounce the Fundamentalist Baptist Movement, well you become the poster boy.

I am well aware of this. I first realized this when I arrived at college and the hall monitor walked in my room and said, "I hear you are John R. Rice's grandson. Can you prove it?" I had to prove it by showing a "Pictorial New Testament" inscribed "To our grandson." :BangHead:

If you care to get to a deeper understanding, then take serious stock in what your critics are saying .....not about you personally, but about the movement you are so connected to. Many have been hurt by it.....and I mean seriously hurt & continue to be hurt by it. So we have to adjust ----that includes everyone.

When you say "the movement" you are broad brushing just like all the other critics. No one has been hurt by "the IFB movement." Not one single person. People are not hurt by movements, but by individuals. I have been hurt by an IFB pastor who falsely accused me. I have been hurt by an IFB pastor who promised missionary support and then broke his word. I was hurt in college by a roommate who continually mocked me and my grandfather. (He apologized 25 years later.) But I have not been hurt by the IFB movement, just as I have not been hurt by the SBC movement.

I once had a Reformed Baptist pastor tell me never to come back to his church for something he had allowed me to do, and then stand there while his wife angrily balled me out. But I have not been hurt by the Reformed Baptist movement, only someone in the movement.

If someone says they have been hurt by the IFB movement, I would have to say, the KJVO half or the MV half? The BBF movement (I've been treated unjustly by a BBF pastor) or the SBF movement? The GARBC (my pastor father was screamed at in SS by a GARBC deacon) or the Hyles-Anderson movement? (I had offering money embezzled by one of them.)

It's all ridiculous. Movements don't hurt people, people hurt people. Individual, backslidden or careless believers hurt other believers. Anything else is broad brushing. And if an individual hurts me, I am to go directly to that individual and make it right, Biblically. Getting on the Internet with an anonymous name and berating and attacking a whole movement for an individual's sin is completely un-Biblical.

The more challenging question is, "how do we try to remain pure through all of this? What is God calling us to and how is he working in our lives.

I keep going back to Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God

This is an excellent attitude. Stay with it.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for posting this John and being willing to subject yourself to the abuse which was sure to come. There is plenty of ugliness, hatred, and vitriol to spare for those who go against the grain.

This topic is the sole reason I have virtually stopped posting here. Most threads ignore the issue and turn into personal insults, innuendoes, and implications within the first 2-3 posts of a thread.

It is one thing to disagree with a position, and quite another to make it personal. Instead of intelligently pointing out problems with a position we read things like:

'Have you ever read the Bible?'
'How far did you make through school before you dropped out?'
'What planet are you posting from?'
'What else would you expect from a liberal/socialist?'

And so on and so on

It has nothing to do with rebuke or calling out errors. It has all to do with trying to win an argument by making a brother look foolish.

That is, without a doubt, an unchristian form of disputation.

There is something about the anonymous Internet that allows people to speak their true feelings without fear. People say absolutely cruel things behind anonymous names, thinking that they will never be found out. Same thing on the BB. I realize there are good reasons for many to be anonymous here, but I really think that some of the anonymous Baptists here say things they would never say in person or in a letter or email. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

 

[John of Japan]

If the only difference is the heart with which one gives it, I don't see why it matters. You can't see my heart and I can't see yours.

I didn't discuss this the first time around, but I'm going to now. If there is no difference between an insult and a rebuke, then there is no meaning to words. I clearly delineated the difference at the very beginning, but apparently you did not see it. The Greek word blasfemia means to insult someone, and it has the sense of attacking their character. If I call someone a fool or an idiot or a moron I am attacking their character and insulting them, I am not rebuking them. I mentioned Matt. 5:22b about this, when Jesus forbade calling your brother "fool" or "raca" (idiot), but you have not commented on that. I would like to know how you interpret it.

A rebuke on the other hand, is when you point out the sin of someone and urge them to change. You don't have to call people names to do this, or even be harsh. The power of the Word of God is where the authority to rebuke comes from. Think of a cop stopping a speeder. I did a ride-along with a cop friend once. When he stopped a speeder he was polite and respectful, even when the perp got angry. Usually the offender was as nervous as all get out, though, and showed respect to the cop. Why? The entire weight of the law was behind the policeman, that's why!

The cop rebuked and was listened to because he had authority behind him. Likewise, the Christian can successfully rebuke sin with loving words, without calling any names, without even being harsh. And if he has the force and authority of the Word of God behind him, the godly or repentant sinner will listen.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When you say "the movement" you are broad brushing just like all the other critics. No one has been hurt by "the IFB movement." Not one single person. People are not hurt by movements, but by individuals. I have been hurt by an IFB pastor who falsely accused me. I have been hurt by an IFB pastor who promised missionary support and then broke his word. I was hurt in college by a roommate who continually mocked me and my grandfather. (He apologized 25 years later.) But I have not been hurt by the IFB movement, just as I have not been hurt by the SBC movement.

I once had a Reformed Baptist pastor tell me never to come back to his church for something he had allowed me to do, and then stand there while his wife angrily balled me out. But I have not been hurt by the Reformed Baptist movement, only someone in the movement.

If someone says they have been hurt by the IFB movement, I would have to say, the KJVO half or the MV half? The BBF movement (I've been treated unjustly by a BBF pastor) or the SBF movement? The GARBC (my pastor father was screamed at in SS by a GARBC deacon) or the Hyles-Anderson movement? (I had offering money embezzled by one of them.)

It's all ridiculous. Movements don't hurt people, people hurt people. Individual, backslid den or careless believers hurt other believers. Anything else is broad brushing. And if an individual hurts me, I am to go directly to that individual and make it right, Biblically. Getting on the Internet with an anonymous name and berating and attacking a whole movement for an individual's sin is completely un-Biblical.

Here is how I view it. Any group, movement, religious society, company etc., is only as good as the lowermost individual representing them. That means in plain talk that if some Priest, Pastor, Congressman, Salesman for a Corporation does wanton evil to another then it "REFLECTS ON THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION" ....... Im fairly certain that the Lord will not accept any excuse that you didnt know &/or had no responsibility for the actions of those representing you.

Im put in mind of Barak Obama who almost daily excuses himself by siting "I didnt know" Id prefer a guy like Harry Truman / "The Buck Stops Here"

Last example is the RCC. When does this abuse of children stop? Well maybe not stop completely but get curtailed significantly. Now I was a RC for 34 years so I have some real insight (Try Googling the SNAP Program/ the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) http://www.snapnetwork.org/

They are grass roots, serious & not taking any prisoners.... I used to be active in it with the chapters in New Jersey but now that I am a Baptist, my concern is evangelizing & the Great Commission. This SNAP Represents the laity attempts to curtail predator priests (and they get lots of push back from the RCC). Tell me, what does the IFB Churches do to curtail the evil doings in their own churches?

 

[InTheLight]

Jesus is the omniscient God. He knew Peter's heart. Not one of us here can make that claim.

Agreed. And like I said I agree with John as well. It so happened that I had been studying Matthew 16 recently and the "Get thee behind me Satan" verse jumped out at me when I read the OP as a possible exception to the no insult rule. I was looking for clarity in relation to the OP and I got it.

 

[Revmitchell]

While Strong's does have the definite article in the English, as you say, I was looking at the Greek NT, not a lexicon or Strong's. In all three Synoptics the usual Greek definite article is left off in the statement of Jesus to Peter, where it almost always occurs elsewhere. It is true that the major translations all have "Satan" there about Peter, and the usual scholars say that Jesus is calling Peter by the proper name of the devil. But because of the Greek construct, I believe Jesus was just calling Peter "adversary."

The word was originally Hebrew, and it occurs in the OT as simply "adversary" and not Satan in 1 Sam. 29:4 (and other passages), where it is used by the Philistines referring to David.

I am not doubting what you say I am just wondering why the article gets added when translated into English.