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: 44385
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 112.
So who are you calling a cult?
Mormons?
Scientologists?
Branch Davidians?
Jehovah Witnesses?
Amish or Mennonites?
#3. To: Willie Green (#2)
Amish or Mennonites?
The Amish and Mennonites never knock on my door.
#4. To: redleghunter (#3) (Edited)
The Amish and Mennonites never knock on my door.
What about Quakers or Hare Krishna?
Christian Scientists, Salvation Army, Rosicrucians, Unitarians or Wiccans?
Who is a cult?
#11. To: Willie Green (#4) (Edited)
Who is a cult?
What is your religion? That would be a cult. Any religion that denies christ is a cult.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#11) (Edited)
What is your religion? That would be a cult. Any religion that denies christ is a cult.
I'm Roman Catholic.
We usually capitalize the "c" in Christ, to indicate that we recognize that He is the Lord our God & Savior.
If I'm not mistaken, that is common practice in protestant denominations also.
So what is your religion?
Is it a cult?
#16. To: Willie Green (#14)
Catholics pray to Mary. That is forbidden.
They call the pope holy father. The Bible says not to do that.
The Catholics took one of the commandments and threw it in trash. Then split another into two parts.
There are Catholics that are saved. But it has a cult element to it.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
So you're anti-Catholic... that doesn't surprise me at all.
But you didn't answer my question: what is your religion? Is it a cult?
#19. To: Willie Green (#17)
So you're anti-Catholic... that doesn't surprise me at all. But you didn't answer my question: what is your religion? Is it a cult?
I'm not anti catholic. They just don't follow the Bible literally. Which is a problem.
My religion is the Bible. Like King James for example.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#19)
They just don't follow the Bible literally. Which is a problem.
Following the Bible literally is itself problematic and misleading if passages are interpreted out of context.
Song of Soloman 4:1~2 (KJV):
1 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
Hair like a flock of goats?
Teeth like a flock of sheep?
No, no, no, no, no.... we do not take every word of the Bible literally. It must be read in it's proper context to be understood. The nomadic tribes of the Middle East were very simple people 3 to 5 thousand years ago. The Lord revealed His Word to them in ways that THEY could understand, so we need to strive to understand the way that THEY would understand it, not the way that WE would take it literally.
#28. To: Willie Green, A K A Stone, redleghunter (#26)
Hair like a flock of goats? Teeth like a flock of sheep? No, no, no, no, no.... we do not take every word of the Bible literally.
John Gill offers this commentary. You really should understand that there is no taking literally any work of ancient poetry, especially translated from another ancient language. If you read poetic works literally, you've kinda missed the point from the get-go.
thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
| that appear from Mount Gilead; or rather "on Mount Gilead", as Noldius: Gilead was a mountain in the land of Israel, beyond Jordan, famous for pasturage for cattle, where flocks of goats were fed, as was usual on mountains (s); and, being well fed, their hair was long, smooth, neat, and glistering; and so to spectators, at a distance, looked very beautiful and lovely; especially in the morning at sun rising, and, glancing on them with its bright and glittering rays, were delightful. So R. Jonah, from the use of the word in the Arabic language, which signifies the morning, interprets it, which "rise early in the morning"; and which, as Schultens (t) observes, some render, "leading to water early in the morning;" the Vulgate Latin version is, "that ascend from Mount Gilead", from a lower to a higher part of it; which is approved of by Bochart (u). |
Translation: even in ancient times, blondes had more fun.
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
| Son 4:2 - Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep,.... That is, like the teeth of a flock of sheep; as her eyes were like the eyes of doves, and her hair like the hair of goats: and Galen long ago observed, that human teeth are much like the teeth of sheep, in figure, order, and structure, as well as are small and white; neatly set, innocent and harmless, not ravenous and voracious, cropping herbs and grass only (w); the whiteness of the teeth is chiefly intended, in which the beauty of them lies, for which they are sometimes compared (x) to Parian marble for whiteness. The Targum interprets these teeth of the priests and Levites; but it is much better to understand them of the ministers of the Gospel: teeth are bony, solid, firm, and strong, sharp to cut and break the food, and prepare it for the stomach: all which well agree with ministers; who are strong in the Lord, and in his grace, to labour in the word and doctrine; to oppose gainsayers, withstand Satan's temptations; bear the reproaches of the world, and the infirmities of weaker saints; and remain firm and unmoved in their ministry; unshaken by all they meet with, from without and from within: they are sharp to rebuke such who are unsound in the faith, or corrupt in their morals, and to penetrate into Gospel truths; to cut and rightly divide the word of truth, and break the bread of life to others, and so chew and prepare spiritual food for souls; not raw and crude; not hard and difficult of digestion, but plain and easy to be understood. And they are like to a flock of sheep, that are even shorn; on which no wool is left, sticking out here and there; which is another good property of teeth, that are of equal size and bigness, do not stand out, nor rise up one above another; and are as if they had been "cut and planed, and made alike" (y), as some render the word: which may denote the equality of Gospel ministers in power and authority; one having no superiority over another; all having the same mission and commission, employed in the same work, preaching the same Gospel; and though their gifts are different, yet there is a harmony and agreement in the doctrines they preach; which came up from the washing; white and clean, which is another property of good teeth; as the teeth of sheep be, and they themselves are, when just come up out of the washing pit: this may signify the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which are necessary to ministers of the word, in order to preach it; and more especially the purity of their lives and conversations, in which they should be examples to the flock; whereof everyone bear twins, and none is barren among them; the figures are just and beautiful; it is common with sheep to bear twins, or more, in the eastern countries, as the philosopher observes (z); frequent mention is made of goats bearing twins (a): these may answer to the two rows of teeth, and the word for "teeth" is in the dual number; and when these are white and clean, and equal, are well set, and not one wanting, none rotten, nor shed, nor fallen out, look very beautiful. |
Translation: chicks with white, even, clean teeth and no missing teeth are totally hot.
Look, Willie, it's a translation of ancient tribal Hebrew poetry. Much as you find this passage obscure, these ancient Jews would not really grasp the poetic allusions and devices in Shakespeare's work any more readily.
Poetry is most often a series of word-pictures, used to evoke feelings, to cast words in a visual sense (instead of mere dry description). Poetry goes beyond works of persuasion or rote knowledge or logic or storytelling narratives. BTW, I'm not a big fan of poetry at all.
I like the KJV for this passage because the translation shows italics wherever the translators inserted words that are not literal, to make it read better in English. But some passages in the bible actually read better in the KJV and this is an example of that. Read it, omitting the italics. It does read rather poetically.
| Son 4:1 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead. Son 4:2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them. |
To me, the KJV is far more desirable in some passages of scripture. It conveys somewhat better the sense of the language. The translators had considerable literary talents they brought to bear on their translation.
#31. To: TooConservative (#28)
Look, Willie, it's a translation of ancient tribal Hebrew poetry. Much as you find this passage obscure, these ancient Jews would not really grasp the poetic allusions and devices in Shakespeare's work any more readily.
Oh I certainly agree... nor would I expect them to grasp Carl Sagan's Cosmos & the Big Bang Theory and the billions of years that it actually took God to create the Universe...
But that's why we don't read Genesis literally... the ancient Jews were simple people, and God explained Creation to them in terms that they could understand.
#32. To: Willie Green (#31)
Theory and the billions of years that it actually took God to create the Universe...
I am most curious what you base that nonsense of billions of years on. Can you explain it or is it something that was spoon fed to you and you never questioned it?
The decisions you have made in life have led you to where you are at today. If you had believed the good book and not discounted its teachings you wouldn't be a leftist today.
Modify your beliefs. You will then make different decisions. Which will lead you out of the fog that leftists are invariably in.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#32)
I am most curious what you base that nonsense of billions of years on. Can you explain it or is it something that was spoon fed to you and you never questioned it?
The decisions you have made in life have led you to where you are at today. If you had believed the good book and not discounted its teachings you wouldn't be a leftist today.
Modify your beliefs. You will then make different decisions. Which will lead you out of the fog that leftists are invariably in.
I am not some 5000 year-old nomadic Jewish shepard boy. I'm a modern-day American who is well educated both in the fudamental tenets of my religious faith AND the scientific facts that reveals the mysteries of God's wonderous universe far beyond the comprehension level of illiterate, 5000-year-old-nomads.
In revealing Genesis to those nomadic tribes, it wasn't God's purpose to educate them with a complex understanding of cosmology & astrophysics. Nor did he intend the Creation Story to include a detailed explanation of DNA/biochemistry/microbiology & evolution.
The Bible and Modern Science are NOT incompatible.
I think it's a shame that you have been duped by atheists into thinking that they are.
#86. To: Willie Green (#51)
The Biblical tenants and science are incompatible when science contradicts the Holy Bible. Science is always contradicting itself. How often has science findings changed previous scientific findings?
#91. To: Don (#86)
The Biblical tenants and science are incompatible when science contradicts the Holy Bible. Science is always contradicting itself. How often has science findings changed previous scientific findings?
Fundamentally, I remain an acolyte of the process of Continuous Improvement, and I beleive that Modern Science has a much better understanding of the Universe than the ancient nomadic tribes of the Middle East 5000 years ago.
If you wish to remain stagnant in their archaic worldview, that is of course your perogative.
#112. To: Willie Green, Don, TooConservative, liberator (#91)
Fundamentally, I remain an acolyte of the process of Continuous Improvement...
Replies to Comment # 112.
There are no replies to Comment # 112.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 112.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]