Ok, lol, when you say crystal clear, I hear that. But the way this, what you share here, reads like to me is this: An ironic question. Like: Since it must be among you that some have force and need to feel approved (entitled seems similar), I tell you it is so indeed, that the approved ones will become apparent among you. Like using the energy and force the elite put on their show of superiority is met by that same principle the elite use, but against them. Not in their favor. I’m not convinced this is what you intend to suggest. But if it is, heck yeah, that is far more than a self evident fact. But even more a rhetorical device of irony to certify its force and intent. Which is pretty creative. Really having nothing to do with what God would or might do as much as imbedded within the living irony, false piety proves piety for those who remain un-tempted by it…kind of thing.
Some think AI is hyped and its bubble to burst at some point soon. You might root for this, but do you think that is a plausible theory brother?
@Johann
Yes, I know my “disdain” is irrational. But, I can be sure my ribald rhetoric cannot offend AI, or ever hurt AI’s feelings. The tool is never offended by the rude cobra.
KP
Nope. I don’t think that is a plausable theory.
Always willing to prove you wrong, but I guess that would be a fruitless exercise. In this case, the instrument produces far more fruit than the spitting cobra.
J.
I would say Paul is not saying false piety proves piety through ironic reversal. He is saying that conflict, tragic as it is, becomes the means by which genuine faithfulness is manifested. It is not literary irony doing the work. It is divine testing operating within the lived reality of the church.
And…
So the more precise reading, even in light of Carson, is not that the elite are hoisted by their own performative energy. It is that God permits the testing environment so that authenticity becomes manifest within the gathered assembly.
J.
@Johann
Good point. You are right about fruit-bearing. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Yikes! (Matthew 7:19) Fruit is organic and will never emerge on a plastic tree (or vine). You and I did not choose Jesus, but Jesus chose us, and He appointed us that we should go and bear fruit, much fruit, glorious fruit, and that our fruit should remain, The Father is glorified, in that we bear His fruit; this is how we are disciples of Jesus. These things He command us, that we must love one another. (John 15:var.;para.)
Keep up the good fruit-bearing.
KP
And…
~1 John 4:1 makes the obligation unmistakable
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
The verb “try” translates dokimazō, the same root concept behind approved in 1 Corinthians 11:19, indicating examination with the goal of determining authenticity.
~Matthew 7:15–20 records our Lord’s warning
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Discernment here is fruit based and evidentiary, not merely intuitive. The visible outcome reveals the inner nature.
~Hebrews 5:14 defines mature discernment
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
The participle exercised implies disciplined training, suggesting discernment is cultivated, not automatic.
~Philippians 1:9–10 shows discernment as a prayer priority
And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; That ye may approve things that are excellent.
The term approve again reflects tested evaluation, distinguishing what truly accords with Christ.
~1 Thessalonians 5:21 gives a concise imperative
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Everything is to be examined, and only what withstands scrutiny is retained.
~2 Corinthians 13:5 directs self examination
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
Discernment begins internally before it is applied externally.
~2 Peter 2:1 warns of infiltrated falsehood
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you.
The presence of counterfeit teachers is assumed, therefore vigilance is required.
Taken together, Scripture does not treat discernment as optional. The church is commanded to test, examine, approve, and distinguish. Authenticity is revealed under scrutiny. Counterfeit faith cannot indefinitely withstand examination grounded in the word of God. Yikes!
J.
PART 1 OF 3
Thank you brothers for the kinds of discussions we are willing to have here. The ways in which some thoughts could be considered don’t always get to certain levels. In that, I would say and see God provide an environment here in this forum consistent with the perspective on testing applied to 11:19. That God permits things to be said, shared, and breathing room of sincere discussion to emerge. Something not often used for “testing” is also the other extreme: 2Corinthians 2:5-11.
. . . . .
Ok so, lol, this is where we will likely agree to disagree. This would likely not be something too well discerned about me. But a tripwire activation has kind of occurred in the wake of our evolving discussion. There is a sphere we are entering here that, for me, would be extremely (like Grand Canyon sized gape) seeing very different things.
On the onset of bringing this to forum I wish to advance two thoughts upfront. (1) I would perceive in general that huge swaths of culture have deeply been kneaded into by reformed thought. In many and most instances it is likely not so much an issue of discernment as generations of cultural exposure to reformed themes. By my own estimations I’m not thinking this is always a misfortune. And (2) Because (1) is something i have seen for many years now, it is not my aim to change that. It is too deep. Too ingrained. And views too far off the spectrum even though they may be more accurate would likely result in disruption to a degree edification would find little place to have her place. So i look at it generally in ways to stream edification. lol. Hopefully. And not disruption.
So because of 1 and 2 I realize most have not traveled the road I have nor is it necessary they should. But because of the degree I had need to look at very subtle nuances in Christian culture for my own sanity, and the doors that opened (whether i wanted that or not) probe in ways that are likely too deep for its own good. Nevertheless, I have had to look at research at levels i never wanted to. But because of the ways in which they have helped inform what nuances actually exist that are different from reformed thought, I kind of can’t unsee it. But I don’t expect it to be something to be won in an argument. It would be ridiculous on many accounts to think it could be. Because there are so many mitigating influences ingrained in culture to suppose it absurd.
That is kind of how i have come to understand the world we live in in the West. I say all this because I guarantee this will not go in a direction of resolve. So truly, it will be edifying to agree to disagree at some point. I say that not as a cop out or argumentation tactic. I say that because I’ve been through this not only a lot. But on some very intense roads of discussion. Not that i don’t mind talking about it. I know the views shared in this post here are hugely subjective. But I’ve had very detailed discussions on this sort of thing. I am pretty familiar with the lay of the land. And it seems like culture is kind of too many standard deviations from the norm for the line of thinking i would venture not be disruption more than a way to have eye meets eye discussion.
I offer this post as a disclaimer. But I would inject it here not because this is where i would have hoped this discussion go. In many ways it would be the exact opposite. That we stray more into territory that makes sense to both sides of the issue. That can be productive. But where we end up on this note is something for me that kind of undoes what could be understood as far more productive opportunities of discussion we have had along the way. In case this seems kind of “windbag-ee,” I humbly offer a sample of the pandora’s box this line of reasoning breeds caution for me, to me: . . .
PART 2 OF 3
1st John – If we use 1st John as an example of God using the church as a testing ground for the approved to be apparent motif, I don’t think that book would have to have been written then. It would have just become apparent. The entire book of 1st John is John helping the congregation understand which end is up after a massive infiltration of gnostics blew through distorting what things meant. There is something else about the timing of 1st John that I found to be pretty cool as well.
What new age or pagan thought often thinks when they are confronted with the word of God is that it kind of belongs to them too. Those who hold that would have lines of reasoning that look at books like the Gospel According to Thomas. Or other gnostic literature. As it stands, they believe that gnosticism belongs in the Christian tradition. For books like 1st John and Jude to be written at the time they were, hugely refutes what the Christian faith was in the eyes of the gonstics, and how it differed greatly from the gnostics. So 1 John and Jude to me are like written toward the close of the century to demonstrate in part that the Christian message did not change or evolve. It remained consistently different from gnostic thoughts of the 1st century. And that posses a huge “genuine” problem for gnostic thought. Had those books not been written at the closing end of the first century, the gnostic argument would still be false, but more confusing to prove Christianity somehow did not evolve into gnostic thought. God in His sovereignty having those 2 books written so late places proto-gnostics between a real world rock and a hard place.
So yeah in a sense the writing of 1st John is itself the church proving it is the approved version of the gospel. Written as a result of gnostics trying to leverage the faith. They were proven to be false. But in reading first John, we can plainly see too though that these poor believers were ravaged. The kinds of things that book addresses demonstrates the levels of deception operating among them. And although we could say that 1st John affirms the view that God has the church as a testing ground (which is a notion I am not contesting…I just don’t see it as safe a conjecture to apply to meaning in some scriptures–those implications are open to manipulation and severe abuse…and I believe they have been), I would argue that seeing this way would be my hopefully polite yet grave contention noted–even as it might relate to the sphere of what was actually happening in 11:19.
In the case of 1st John we see that the remnant remained. And in seeing that we can tend to conclude 1st John as a book for testing the faith. But from the way I have seen this book handled over the years, the fact that it addressed gnostic thought is affirmed. But really in modern Christianity is understood more like a foot note to get to the really juicy part of what John is really about…and that is to see it as a test of true and false Christianity. However, I do not think that is possible to any reasonable degree. Because (a) I would see 1st John as affirming one’s faith (which is how John wrote it) rather than testing people to see if they are real believers. But the modern church has fully embraced it as a manual for true and false believers…even though it was meant as consolatory to the church it was written to.
And (b), which I believe is a bit more telling: Based on the things this book handles and based on its great need to be written to show huge contrast between the real faith and gnostic belief, the modern church sermon usually gives 2-5% interest in the actual context it is written in and 95% value as a manual of true or false believers. Even if it were a manual like that (which i believe has been culturally skewed to placate church authority) it would seem to be more reasonably done so from a 95% position of heavy thick and rich context so it makes sense all along the way in context to “then” translate how that works today in reference or contrast. But to do that seems archaic i think. Since we don’t hold those gnostic beliefs today in the world apparent (although i would differ…but a completely different story). Or maybe a lot more homework? I’m not sure what it is exactly, but the precious word of God studied in the context it is written is a huge part of exegesis. I don’t think 1st John is to show real and fake believers. I believe it was written to encourage those who were true believers and to lock in the faith at the tail end of the century. To use this book without the rich context of what it is dealing with and then use it in the church to ferret out false believers (if merely only in the minds of some) to me is not necessarily the healthiest look upon it, I believe. This is an example of my concern. And if anything, in permitting an ignoring of this (the rich meaty context of 1 John) only permits neo-gnostic values to have more fair game in the church at large. And lo and behold, is it not brethren that we kind of see a lot of that in the state of the church today no doubt?
If 11:19 means the church is a testing ground for God to approve the godly, can we not see how thinking this way can hugely set us up though? By that standard, Kenneth Copeland is approved. I think it is not a healthy direction sincerely. We will differ. In Revelation Christ warned the church of Ephesus (which did get their candlestick removed) and the Laodicean church (which did not…ironically). In neither case was it that the approved were demonstrated. In Laodicea’s case it seemed to be that they repented.
PART 3 OF 3
What is interesting about DA Carson is that we see his personal beliefs about 11:19. But as chief editor of PNTC, he permitted a view contrary to his own from the efforts of various scholarship. I find this commendable. I don’t ascribe to Carson’s personal views on that passage. Because to me he is relying more on systematic theology rather than biblical theology approach. And subtly inserting meaning consistent with his reformed beliefs. What i do like about him is he is willing to put his name on a view that holds his own in question.
Johann, i don’t believe this is a matter of having his commentaries or not. My general concern is that we (any of us including myself) can tend to overlay preconceived notions onto text. And use strong language like “unquestionable, most certainly…etc.” to double down. I am very touched and blessed in the hard work you have put in on this. And to some degree have moved me in so doing. But right here, going this direction, we are going over a cliff…lol.
I brought up 11:19 as a “biblical theological” method approach consideration. I believe you have made many good points to that end. But the greater deeper nuances as to how a systematic like evaluation to bolster our view of 11:19 runs up against 25 years of my life lived in the midst of high octane reformed seminary level exegesis “as lopsided,” meets up with too very much loud and in great degree crowded dinner table items on “tilt” over said sleuthing. I understand by saying that it can be prejudiced on my part. Discussing this verse was at least as much an effort to honestly challenge that in me. But going this systemic theological approach route as a way to put a bow on it runs the danger, to me, of soiling the deeper work in discussion realized. Earlier you mentioned something about the centricity of communion overriding the thought that 11:19 supports an abstract theological takeaway…only now to come back full circle to it. See the subtly? Blessings.
Brother, you have written extensively on 1 Corinthians 11:19, pages upon pages, and I am more than willing to have any errors on my part corrected by you without the slightest concern. But I find myself more interested in discussing 1 John and the matter of Gnosticism, especially since you raised it.
My approach to Scripture is consistently hermeneutical and exegetical. That is the framework I work within. I am Baptist and Reformed, which may sound unusual to some, but I have never claimed to be anything other than what I am.
I truly wish I had access to Bob Utley when I was a younger man. My appreciation for his work runs deeper than you probably realize.
So where do we go from here?
J.
a of a-c
First of all just want to say “I love you brother.” And I think very fondly of you, our forum, and so far those met here. I’m sure i have yet to scratch the surface of the beauty the Lord has up in here. I so very much appreciate your heart Johann, truly.
I was reformed Baptist too. It does not sound unusual, to me in any case. I’m not sure how the % breaks down in our forum, but one thing I am very blessed to realize (and this may only speak to a segment here) is that even though I have serious concerns with John MacArthur’s positions on a host of things, I think it very blessed that his cross over into the reformed camp in the late 80’s opened up channels of opportunities for those in the reformed camp to rethink the “Israel” stance and the futurist angle. Things pretty commonly historically left outside those camps for the most part. In that sense, Macarthur indeed was a maverick.
One other thing i’d like to clarify because I am not exactly sure how I might be coming across. My concern with where our discussion in regards to the church being a place of testing is not something I am against. It may seem so for any who might read what I’ve written. I do agree with you brother that the church is a testing ground. It is. So is much of life in general. I would say the church even more so though because i do think we see it in scripture. So I don’t mean to come across as though we don’t agree there. We do. I believe Macarthur’s movement helped significantly in bringing back church discipline as a desirable thing in the church again. Which I think is healthy. I don’t mean if i might to come across as one who might not see the church having authority even in discipline. For i do believe it very much does. But i would like to share a small slice as to the problem there as I see it..
b of a-c
Decades ago a book was written called “The Tale of Three Kings.” Its a very short read. Many believers have heard of it. It is one of a few books on Amazon that actually has, from what i remember, thousands of reviews. Pretty rare to see. What blew me away with the book is how the author Gene Edwards described it came to be written. He was in the ministry and had a rougher version of the book out, not thinking much of it. Just hoping to address some issues and be encouraging. What Edwars found though was a slew of mail he got in response to it. It shocked him. Because he got thousands of stories of people being so abused in the church. He realized he was on to something big.
As a member of Jmac’s church, they identified as a “fundamentalist” church when i joined. But that was around the time Macarthur had changed his views on the eternal sonship issue and a big falling out with fundamentalism was brewing. Jmac had later recanted his view.
Fundamentalism is necessary to a degree. They were extremely necessary in the church during the days of Charles Darwin as a preservative of conservative views remaining intact. But downstream many decades later, fundamentalism has been known for it harsh and over-the-top reactions. Some would say even, legalistic. But wherever on the spectrum, it seems that fundamentalism has become a denomination most associated with Saturday Night Live’s vintage “Church Lady” character. I’ve known people that committed suicide rather than able to come to a place of discussion in high octane churches. I remember reading one comment online that i found was sadly kind of humorous. In response to the fundi’s, she said at the end of the day, she was not even sure what her name was, or that she even had a favorite color.
In addition, 9Marks is an example of the mood of the day we live in. A day of infiltration. The day of Authoritarian Church. That is not to me the same as the church stepping up to her authority. Nor enforcing church discipline. I am going to make a likely shocking statement here to give a sense of at least how i might be looking at things. I would compare the authoritarian church today with the Laodicean church in Revelation. That connection seems like an oxymoron maybe. When we think of Laodicea we think maybe of NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) or extreme wings of the prosperity gospel. But from what i understand, the township name of Laodicea means “Governed of the people.” For democracy this is fine. But my concern is to what level we might have evolved into a church Jesus is knocking at the door of to come in. Because of our tendency to self-rule. Amen that we need to have room to grow and make mistakes. Amen. But Hillsong like Mega churches may seem like an easier version of what comes to mind when we think of Laodicea. But one recent long standing event that troubled me quite a bit was the way the Steve Lawson issue was handled.
Its strange enough to have the poster child of Lordship Salvation implode before the entire world. But to me, my concern of what level of fakery might be functioning in the church today (and had a pretty big issue for Lawson to have represented all of that) shifted greatly from Lawson living a double life for so long while parading what looked like God using the church as a testing ground was all about, to the leadership around his orbit. The PR damage control was just gross to me. The way unfortunately that things looked to me is similar to reformed author Carl Trueman’s article about Josh Harris’s apostatizing. We often rightly call the level of concern in the church today a church becoming too wordily with pyrotechnics, smoke machines, and rock music concert worship brought to the sanctuary (not to mention deepening into liberalism). But I believe this as much applies to what we might fancy to aspire to even in sound orthodoxy. Carl Trueman called it, “Orthodoxy as performing art.” To what degree that is real, it is a thing. And it lives deliciously. That is the “discerning” context we are seeing the church being a testing ground. And because of what ever strange poles in the church universe that have shifted over the course of several decades, means, one safe bet would likely be, “We are not in Kansas anymore.”
I was just hopeful to layout my hope for the church and my esteem for her in affirming we do need church discipline. In case it might sound like I am not too in favor of that. Its just what orientation the church has been gravitating toward and in that is enough of a concern to be aware of tools in its hands meant for good to be used potentially quite differently. Not to upend church devotion. But to be about the real meaning of “reformation.” Not what sells newspapers, book signing events, seminars, conferences, and aide and abet Orthodoxy as Performing art, or was to possibly spiritually Botox what approved looks like to us. Josh Harris was. He was approved and placed on front street as part of the whole Young and Restless overture. I actually loved his book Stop Dating the Church. Thank the Lord that even in this quagmire, at least we still can see what can be worked on though to some degree. And for me, that is just hopefully areas where we can discover perhaps some depth in truth transcending an ever encroaching Christian pop-culture that has also the discernment ministries as card carrying members.
c of a-c
Where we go from here? Well I want you to know Johann even if it might not feel like it, that I have been helped during these discussions. It might seem that I have quite a take impenetrable. Even if it might come across that way, I tell you no lie, if there is something particularly true about the reformed perspective in ways helpful to consider, I can be moved even toward a denomination that in ways has seemed to have been exhausted for me. One Youtube Channel i had grown fond of over the years is the reformed channel: Theocast. Also Dean Lentini, Underdog Theology. So even though i have significant issues with it, they/you are my family.
If any others would like to comment on this thread that is fine and welcomed. What you have helped me to see Johann is the ravishingly lovely deep context of communion, the challenge to “in part i believe it” (to the extent I do no longer agree with PNTC’s observation on that), and ways in which the communion context there does have deep weight in clarifying very much so some of Paul’s statements.
So overall, I would say you have helped me to see past about 30% to 40% of why I asked and posted this. 60% of my concern would be specific addresses to ways in which 11:19 can be discerned. That for me is still pending. If anything i would likely see it less sarcastic and more proverbial with a tint of echo to the elite to come off their pedestals. So for that big 60% i would say you have even moved me there to a degree. But much of the concerns related to that aspect is still, for me, needing for the jury to come in. It may never come in…lol. Or maybe you have answered it and 3 years from now i will realize it. But in any event I would not want this occasion to pass us and it not be something to affirm that for me it was helpful to take a walk and journey with you guys into what might not be there, what might be there, and what is available currently to move through surely some of it. And that to me is awesome progress. It is not often that a post leads someone to literally change aspects of their position. It happens. But it is more common i think for things to take time.
As far as this thread, perhaps there are yet posts to consider so even yourself or others that would like to weigh in, that would be greatly appreciated. There may be a very helpful consideration not yet realized. I can only imagine that the level of conversation here might not gain new posts. i hope it does though. But even if not brother, you have been very helpful. And thank you. 
If you would like to discuss the 1st John gnostic issue, I’d love to. If you would like to start a new thread, I’m game. Blessings.
Our Lord’s richest blessings through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit upon you brother and a hearty shalom to you and family.
Johann.