Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Should Christians Be Hospitable to Cult Members?
Source:
Grace to You
URL Source: http://www.gty.org/resources/bible- ... ble-to-cult-members?Term=cults
Published: Mar 11, 2015
Author: John MacArthur
Post Date: 2015-03-11 16:41:49 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 40598
Comments: 144
In verse 10 John sets out one practical application of how to defend the truth: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house. Hospitality for traveling teachers was common in the culture (cf. Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-12). The prohibition here is not to turn away the ignorant; it does not mean that believers may not invite unbelievers—even those who belong to a cult or false religion—into their midst. That would make giving the truth to them difficult, if not impossible. The point is that believers are not to welcome and provide care for traveling false teachers, who seek to stay in their homes, thereby giving the appearance of affirming what they teach and lending them credibility John’s use of the conjunction ei (if) with an indicative verb indicates a condition that is likely true. Apparently, the lady to whom he wrote had for whatever reason, in the name of Christian fellowship, already welcomed false teachers into her home. It was just such compassionate, well-meaning people that the false teachers sought out (cf. 2 Tim. 3:6); since churches were supposed to be protected by elders who were skilled teachers of the Word (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9), they should have been less susceptible to the lies propagated by the deceivers. Having established themselves in homes, the false teachers hoped eventually to worm their way into the churches. It is much the same today, as false teaching insidiously invades Christian homes through television, radio, the Internet, and literature. So threatening are these emissaries of Satan that Jo[h]n went on to forbid even giving them a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. Irenaeus relates that the church father Polycarp, when asked by the notorious heretic Marcion, “Do you know me?” replied, “I do know you—the firstborn of Satan” (Against Heresies, 3.3.4). John himself once encountered Cerinthus (another notorious heretic) in a public bathhouse in Ephesus. Instead of greeting him, however, John turned and fled, exclaiming to those with him, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4).
Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-100) not displayed.
.
.
.
#101. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, Don, Willie Green (#90)
They will eventually embrace (some do now) some pagan pantheism to 'splain' things. Everything under the sun (or universe) other than a Sovereign and Eternal God. Occam's Razor (in reverse.) Totally IL-logical. And ironic. Somehow, Science's Gospel of Dis-provable/Impossible Theory became the official religion of Atheism, Secular Humanism, and Trekkies. As a rhetorical aside, with respect to the inextricable implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where has all the energy dissipated to since "On The First Day..."? Aaaah -- Entropy and the chaos of...Satan. As a related political aside -- 0bola, his regime, and his co-collaborators have done nothing but facilitate and accelerate the entropy of the state, while the Deists, Atheists, New Agers, homofascists, Islam, etal. have aided and abetted as well. Had Maxwell Smart only beaten KAOS back in the 60s....
Don't know whether the ancient gnostics were whispered sweet rotten nothings into their ear, but Satan's MO has always been to serve up a bit of Truth with Lies. God is still blamed for all things that go bad, isn't He? It is an interesting take, a markedly decadent universe. The flip side of the everything-is-getting-better-in-every-way progressive types. I guess the "take" is a matter of history, Scripture, science (The Second Law of Thermodynamics), and math when it comes down to it. Yeah, it's mostly Progressive/Kumbaya-types who believe Mother Earth is a living breathing entity with a soul who just needs to be coddled, cuddled, and....worshiped. #FOREVER.
It just keeps expanding the Universe further and further apart until eventually it dissipates in the cold emptiness of infinity.
Yup. Not gonna bore you with details, BUT....after The Great Flood, the earth changed dramatically (yes, I realize that theory will be challenged.) The sedentary fossils do provide that evidence of much larger creatures (yes, including T-Rex and Bronto-Burgers, who didn't quite make it :-(
The "infinity" of Time or Space? Or both? MUST there necessarily be a scientific explanation for material effluent? THOUGHT: Could the material effluent well transition into another dimension beyond the material universe? After all, aren't our souls, our essence NOT of this material world?
I don't know...
That is possible. It depends on the historical context given in Moses time of this: Genesis 1: 14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Were the seasons measured just by our solar system heavenly bodies or were what they would consider the greater constellations created that same day as well? That can be an entry level consideration. Then again we have this...."He made the stars also."
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Willie you like eco fast trains. Did they always exist? No, someone wrote the blueprints, gathered the materials, engineered the materials and built the trains. Someone designed everything we see.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Without a cause or prime mover.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Science can't deal with motives or matters for which it can derive no evidence. To put it in slanted terms, both Big Bang and creationism are varieties of the Big Poof. As opposed to this new theory of a truly static and eternal universe which we might call Stasis. Or the Big Theory of Same Old Same Old.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
We can conclude they were solar revolutions, though perhaps not 24 hours. This is if we translate "or" as "light", and "Hhosekh" as "darkness", such that a "yom" - a "day" is a period of "light and darkness". However, "or" also means order. In fact, the word "order" comes from the Hebrew root "or", which is what God created first. Did he say "let there be 'light'"? No, he said "Yehyeh Or" - which can be just as accurately translated as "Order will be" as it is translated "Light will be". Breath and spirit are the same thing in Hebrew. So are Order and Light. The chaos is darkness, Hhoshekh, which God walls off with Order. So, is a "Yom" a period of Light and Darkness? Or is it a period of Order and Disorder? It is literally either one. The translator decides what he prefers. The language itself says both things simultaneously. Our ordered periods of light and dark are day and night, but even at night there is light, less of it. A literal read of Genesis can lead one to the traditional read, but it can also lead one to a very different comprehsion, of God imposing order, by his spirit, upon chaos, and bringing order up out of it. And that doesn't so much have to do with solar revolutions, even when solar revolutions are happening. What I am saying is that, actually, nobody gets a win on this. Literally it says both things, and the pictographs paint both things. The real truth is that God very probably uses light and darkness as visible symbols of what he is really doing, with order and chaos, energy and entropy, exactly as the poet uses fleece as symbols for white teeth, but even white teeth as a harbinger of the REAL essence of the poem, which is beauty and love. God is more intelligent than Einstein, and a better poet than Shakespeare. Usually he LITERALLY means two, or four, or fifteen separate things all at the same time, and all of them literally, which is why there were 12 Apostles and not just one Prophet.
Except that it has slowed down since the beginning.
Elton John is their mascot.
About sums it all up.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
It doesn't even describe THAT. It describes their "FATTENING", their being ordered and filled up with things. And really, it's just the land that is spoken of. The stuff that goes on in the skies is only discussed insofar as throwing light upon the land of here.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Do you think that would be uncharitable. I mean they are magnetic type stickers and not permanent:) It's be more charitable than the "Gay and Proud" bumper sticker that somehow, some way got stuck on the front bumper of a jackass dipwad of a Navy LCDR back in the mid-1980s.
Whoa, blue alien porn! SHOW US YOUR RETICULATING MEMBRANES! WOO-HOO!
Yes but the mere fact we are thinking, living, feeling beings means science cannot answer origins. There's more to "in the beginning a big boom" or even worse "there is no beginning but just been there..." There used to be a time that scientists understood the limits of the knowledge of the universe and looked to an intelligent, feeling, knowing unmoved mover. This is why types like our buddy Dawkins gets miffed when people who debate him bring up philosophical propositions (some theologically driven of course). Dawkins and the other militant atheists believe science is the only knowledge and wisdom. He wants people to strip themselves not only of their faith but of their actual humanity of a thinking, feeling knowing person. I think Paul said it best: Romans 1: 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Well that was quite poetic by itself:) Very good.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
So someone did that to your car:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Actually, Jesus instructed the specific people listening to him in a specific time and place, and culture, and circumstance - and he knew each of those people. We read it, and can learn from it, but if we read Jesus saying "DO THIS" to a certain set of specific people whom he knew directly, in that time and place, as being explicit directions for what we are to exactly do, in this time and place, we err. Jesus is at his most general at the end of Revelation, on the last two pages, when he says who will be thrown into the fire at judgment. THAT we can take as direct warnings that will affect us directly. But specifics about the Jewish law, delivered to Jews in a Jewish Israel with Judaism organized in a way that was very much like the Catholic Church of the middle ages, and very much not like any religious organization or any other institution with which we're familiar today...well...if we read Jesus saying "YOU" to Shecki ben Youssuf as being an explicit directive to Brian O'Shaughnessy...then we're not reading it right. If there is a lawbook in the New Testament, it's Revelation. And what Jesus says in there is really quite offensive to all of the major Christian sects, which is why they don't read it or base anything on it...except for the ones who trip out on the wild imagery but ignore the most important message of Revelation, taken as dictation from Jesus in the Throne Room of God AFTER Peter and Paul and the other Apostles are dead: He's going to judge men by their deeds. DEEDS. Not thoughts. Not beliefs. Not "faith". DEEDS. Men are judged, by God, by what they DO. Jesus Christ said that from the Throne room of heaven after Paul was long dead. He said it as DICTATION, not as some vaguely remembered speech. And he made the point of having the LAST WORD, so it's a CORRECTIVE to all of the other "maybes" that come before it. Maybe...,..., BUT ACTUALLY you are judged by your DEEDS, not by your faith. Who said? Jesus, from the Throne Room of Heaven. This is why nobody likes Revelation. Because it puts the kebosh on two millennia of traditional AND evangelical nonsense. There's a new law, for the world, a New Deal, a New Covenant. It's not AS HARD as the traditionalists make it, it's a lot HARDER than the spiritualists make it. There's a list of things that will get you damned - and notably, murder and sexual immorality are on the list. So's lying. And there's a standard of judgment: what you did in your life. Jesus gave the world a plate of spinach. Most Christians are babies who hurl it across the room and go back to their pacifier, of what they WANT to believe. For some, that's what he said to Shecki. For others, it's what Paul said to some Greeks. For people who can read and reason, it's what GOD said from the Throne Room of Heaven at the end of the Bible, after everybody else had their say. I've not very much fun in Bible bashes, because I always skip to the end of the book and answer the question - Yeah, St. Porfirio said that, but JESUS, at the END, DICTATED this from the Throne Room of heaven, so THIS is the FINAL ANSWER. Which it is. Which is why cranko's idea of a Bible study that starts with Revelation is excellent.
No. But maybe I had the thought to suggest that some disgruntled people do it to somebody else's car. Maybe...
And do you know WHY you are judged by what you DO, and not by your "Faith", not by what you believe? Because Jesus wants it that way. It was HE who said, as the end was nearing, quite pointedly: "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you do not do what I say?" He also gave the story of those who cry "Lord, Lord!" but get shunted into the fire. If you're not doing the deeds, then you don't have the faith. That's the bottom line. How do you know if you have the faith? If you're murdering people, committing sexual immorality, lying, a dirty dog, engaging on pharmakeia and idolatry, then you're going to the fire...which means that you don't REALLY believe. If you really believed, you'd DO WHAT GOD TOLD YOU. You don't, so you don't really believe. That's the bottom line. The path to destruction is broad. The path to salvation is narrow and few stay on it. He said that too.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Are you questioning the Big Bang?
Not if you find it upsetting.
Not if you find it upsetting. I don't but some people might freak out.
If you think that those "Nomads" wrote the Holy Scriptures based on their secular beliefs, I can understand your comments. Christians know it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the scriptures through human beings. God knows the Universe that He created.
Is this where being "taken for a ride" began?
:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
That doesn't mean anything. God made a finished product.
But He left it up to us to upgrade and maintain, not use and abuse.
A cult teaches false doctrine regarding the person of Christ.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Funny cartoon. My daughter really liked it. Thanks for posting.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
But He left it up to us to upgrade and maintain, not use and abuse. A tiny speck in a galaxy containing 400 billion stars, many of which have several planets circling around them. There are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe, possibly many more. And all men could fit on a square 50 by 50 miles.
I'd hate to be the poor schmuck who's responsible for cleaning all the porta-potties fpr THAT crowd...
Comments (141 - 144) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAtheists are always looking for the next 'angle' to explain things they can't explain with real science.
#102. To: TooConservative (#99)
Your remarks remind me a little of some of the ancient gnostics. How the material world was evil and corrupt, the idea that the Creator was corrupt and evil entity who different from the God of the NT.
#103. To: Liberator (#101)
where has all the energy dissipated to since "On The First Day..."?
#104. To: TooConservative (#100)
Many other species still with us today were much much larger in ancient times.
#105. To: Willie Green (#103)
....Eventually it dissipates in the cold emptiness of infinity.
#106. To: Liberator (#105)
I figger I'm gonna be worm food long before the Universe ends, so I don't fret about it much.
Besides... it sounds way too gloomy, dismal and lonely for me...
I'm kinda glad that I probably won't be around to see it.
#107. To: TooConservative, liberator, A K A Stone (#92)
What if Genesis describes only the creation of our own planet and solar system and no more?
#108. To: Liberator (#101)
Had Maxwell Smart only beaten KAOS back in the 60s....
#109. To: Willie Green, liberator (#103)
It just keeps expanding the Universe further and further apart until eventually it dissipates in the cold emptiness of infinity.
#110. To: TooConservative, liberator, GarySpFc (#92)
So Big Bang is a lot of instant creationism
#111. To: redleghunter (#110)
Without a cause or prime mover.
#112. To: Willie Green, Don, TooConservative, liberator (#91)
Fundamentally, I remain an acolyte of the process of Continuous Improvement...
#113. To: redleghunter (#59)
After day 4, we can logically conclude all days were 24 hour days as the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4.
#114. To: Willie Green (#71)
No, the speed of light is a known constant
#115. To: TooConservative (#111)
To put it in slanted terms, both Big Bang and creationism are varieties of the Big Poof.
#116. To: TooConservative (#97)
We greatly overestimate the extent of our knowledge.
#117. To: TooConservative (#92)
What if Genesis describes only the creation of our own planet and solar system and no more?
#118. To: Liberator (#102)
Yeah, it's mostly Progressive/Kumbaya-types who believe Mother Earth is a living breathing entity with a soul who just needs to be coddled, cuddled, and....worshiped. #FOREVER.
#119. To: redleghunter (#79)
I'm thinking of getting magnet bumper stickers for his car. One with "COEXIST" and the other "Veterans for Obola."
#120. To: redleghunter (#118)
#121. To: TooConservative, liberator, GarySpFc, A K A Stone (#111)
Science can't deal with motives or matters for which it can derive no evidence.
#122. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
God is more intelligent than Einstein, and a better poet than Shakespeare. Usually he LITERALLY means two, or four, or fifteen separate things all at the same time, and all of them literally, which is why there were 12 Apostles and not just one Prophet.
#123. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
#124. To: TooConservative (#84)
(Edited)
Jesus instructs to...
#125. To: redleghunter (#123)
So someone did that to your car:)
#126. To: Vicomte13 (#124)
ACTUALLY you are judged by your DEEDS, not by your faith.
#127. To: Liberator (#104)
yes, including T-Rex and Bronto-Burgers, who didn't quite make it :-(
#128. To: Vicomte13 (#126)
The path to destruction is broad.
#129. To: TooConservative (#97)
We don't really know enough about the universe to make pompous proclamations.
#130. To: A Pole (#129)
Are you questioning the Big Bang?
#131. To: TooConservative (#130)
Are you questioning the Big Bang?
#132. To: Willie Green (#91)
#133. To: redleghunter (#127)
#134. To: Vicomte13 (#125)
#135. To: Willie Green (#71)
No, the speed of light is a known constant, so the approximate size and age of the known Universe is readily calculable.
#136. To: A K A Stone (#135)
God made a finished product.
#137. To: Willie Green (#9)
Well without casting stones, the problem is that there's no consensus among the various mainstream Christian denominations as to what those doctrines are. Whenever you start discussing the differences between denominations, the battle lines are quickly drawn as to whose details are "true" and whose are heresy or apostasy.
#138. To: redleghunter (#127)
#139. To: Willie Green, A K A Stone, TooConservative, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#136)
"God made a finished product."
#140. To: A Pole (#139)
And all men could fit on a square 50 by 50 miles.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]