Is cessation an observation or theology?
- Thread starter Lamar
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You seem to have based your entire diatribe against emotionalism on one particular aspect of the Greek word for "bowels" (κοιλία). Apparently, thinking you had made some discovery, you proceeded to spin the definition towards hyper-emotionality because fits how you view Pentecostals. However such visceral feelings are also experienced when a believer is moved with compassion.
Jesus Himself was, at times, moved with compassion: 40Then a leper came to Jesus, begging on his knees: “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” 41 Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out His hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” He said. “Be clean!” 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and the man was cleansed.…
As you know, the Greek word translated moved with compassion is splagchnizomai (σπλαγχνίζομαι) which ALSO refers to the bowels or intestines where the feeling is often experienced. Was Jesus "ruled by his emotions" when this happened to Him? No, He was always in control. Still, even the Father is not impassive. Instead, He feels our suffering with us and is full of a pity and compassion that is not just mental.
When Paul urges believers to offer our bodies to Christ because of His many tender mercies he used still another word that alludes to the deep feeling one senses in their bowels. In this case, the word was οἰκτιρμῶν (oiktirmōn) which indicates God's pity, compassion, favor, grace, mercy.
1Therefore I urge you, brothers, on account of God’s MERCIES to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship
(Romans 12:1).
Of course, the term κοιλία (which refers to the inner abdominal cavity) is sometimes used to the habit of serving ones PHYSICAL APPETITES rather than the desires of the Holy Spirit. Because of this I believe that when the Bible speaks of making ones belly their god it means serving our carnal appetites not specifically our emotions. You claim that your authority to make such a determination comes from your close association with a friend whom you consider to be an expert in Koine Greek and a practiced exegete. Since none of us are in the position to evaluate this claim, I will refer you to a few authors who are universally recognized in this field of study.
The first one is A. T. Robertson, who was a pioneer in Greek studies especially in his use of early Koine Greek (secular) writings as a means of understanding NT grammar. His masterwork was his 1400 page grammar: A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historic research which I have had in my library for many years. Robertson also produced an exegetical commentary of the NT entitled: Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament.
When I went back to Robertson I was particularly interested in what he had to say about the passage you cited in Philippians 3:19 which you aimed at Christians who you judge to be overly emotional and in this way they were "making their BELLY THEIR GOD." Though you were careful to make this about their WORKS rather than their SALVATION, I still think you went off the rails when you initially defined the word "belly" as referring specifically to the EMOTIONS. Here is what Robertson wrote:
Jesus Himself was, at times, moved with compassion: 40Then a leper came to Jesus, begging on his knees: “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” 41 Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out His hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” He said. “Be clean!” 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and the man was cleansed.…
As you know, the Greek word translated moved with compassion is splagchnizomai (σπλαγχνίζομαι) which ALSO refers to the bowels or intestines where the feeling is often experienced. Was Jesus "ruled by his emotions" when this happened to Him? No, He was always in control. Still, even the Father is not impassive. Instead, He feels our suffering with us and is full of a pity and compassion that is not just mental.
When Paul urges believers to offer our bodies to Christ because of His many tender mercies he used still another word that alludes to the deep feeling one senses in their bowels. In this case, the word was οἰκτιρμῶν (oiktirmōn) which indicates God's pity, compassion, favor, grace, mercy.
1Therefore I urge you, brothers, on account of God’s MERCIES to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship
(Romans 12:1).
Of course, the term κοιλία (which refers to the inner abdominal cavity) is sometimes used to the habit of serving ones PHYSICAL APPETITES rather than the desires of the Holy Spirit. Because of this I believe that when the Bible speaks of making ones belly their god it means serving our carnal appetites not specifically our emotions. You claim that your authority to make such a determination comes from your close association with a friend whom you consider to be an expert in Koine Greek and a practiced exegete. Since none of us are in the position to evaluate this claim, I will refer you to a few authors who are universally recognized in this field of study.
The first one is A. T. Robertson, who was a pioneer in Greek studies especially in his use of early Koine Greek (secular) writings as a means of understanding NT grammar. His masterwork was his 1400 page grammar: A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historic research which I have had in my library for many years. Robertson also produced an exegetical commentary of the NT entitled: Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament.
When I went back to Robertson I was particularly interested in what he had to say about the passage you cited in Philippians 3:19 which you aimed at Christians who you judge to be overly emotional and in this way they were "making their BELLY THEIR GOD." Though you were careful to make this about their WORKS rather than their SALVATION, I still think you went off the rails when you initially defined the word "belly" as referring specifically to the EMOTIONS. Here is what Robertson wrote:
Logically speaking, the word belly best fits sins of bodily APPETITE Notice that Robertson wrote that making one's belly their god involves feeding ones carnal APPETITES though: overeating, excess drinking (of alcohol) and sex. It is clear Robertson did not see the primary focus as being about hyper-emotionality as you have said.
Another man whose knowledge of Koine Greek I respect more than almost anyone was John Chrysostom the Archbishop of Constantinople who lived in the early centuries of the Church (AD 347-407) when the dominant language was still the Koine Greek the Apostles spoke, and wrote. Chysostom's method of teaching the word was exegetical - word by word, line by line. Since notes were taken in shorthand his writings are still available for us to study. Often when i have questions about a particular passage I will look to Chrysostom.
When I began questioning the accuracy of your idea that "ones belly being one's god" had to do with excess emotionalism I looked to Chrysostom. After all, who would know more about a language than someone who had grown up speaking it? When I looked up how Chrysostem understood Philippians 3:19 here is what he wrote:
But these being base, and lovers of life, and lovers of their bodies, are ENEMIES OF THE CROSS. And every one, who is a friend of luxury, and of present safety, is an enemy of that Cross in which Paul makes his boast: which he embraces, with which he desires to be incorporated. As when he saith, "I am crucified unto the world, and the world unto me." But here he saith, "I now tell you weeping." Wherefore? Because the evil was urgent, because such deserve tears. Of a truth the luxurious are worthy of tears, who make fat that which is thrown about them, I mean the body, and take no thought of that soul which must give account. Behold thou livest delicately, behold thou art drunken, to-day and to-morrow, ten years, twenty, thirty, fifty, a hundred, which is impossible; but if thou wilt, let us suppose it. What is the end? What is the gain? Nought at all. Doth it not then deserve tears, and lamentations, to lead such a life; God hath brought us into this course, that He may crown us, and we take our departure without doing any noble action.
Wherefore Paul weepeth, where others laugh, and live in pleasure. So sympathetic is he: such thought taketh he for all men. "Whose god," saith he, "is the belly." For this have they a God! [665] That is, "let us eat and drink!" Dost thou see, how great an evil luxury is? to some their wealth, and to others their belly is a god. Are not these too idolaters, and worse than the common? And their "glory is in their shame." (1 Corinthians 15:32.) Some say it is circumcision. I think not so, but this is its meaning, they make a boast of those things, of which they ought to be ashamed. It is a fearful thing to do shameful actions; yet to do them, and be ashamed, is only half so dreadful. But where a man even boasts himself of them, it is excessive senselessness
A little later Chrysostom adds this: .
Thou hast received a belly, that thou mayest feed, not distend it, that thou mayest have the mastery over it, not have it as mistress over thee: that it may minister to thee for the nourishment of the other parts, not that thou mayest minister to it, not that thou mayest exceed limits. The sea, when it passes its bounds, doth not work so many evils, as the belly doth to our body, together with our soul.
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom
Nicene and Post-nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,
Edited by Philip Schaff
Nicene and Post-nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,
Edited by Philip Schaff
Is it not obvious that Chrysostom understood making ones belly a god to mean allowing ones physical appetites to control them rather than yielding ones members to the Holy Spirit?
Congratulations....
You found someone to make your desired outcome appear to be justified.
But you can not explain what the likes of Pentecostalism popped up many centuries after the life of Chrysostom.
He was free to be naive, for there was no need to try to explain what we find with the Pentecostals much later in time.
Modern Pentecostalism began in the early 20th century, emphasizing "baptism in the Holy Spirit" and speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as a return to Apostolic-era Christianity. It grew from the Holiness movement (late 1800s) to become a global force, starting with Charles Parham’s 1901 Topeka revival and exploding at William J. Seymour's 1906 Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles.
Sorry to say....It took Satan many years to finally come up with that movement.
A movement that is designed to mislead and to disrupt what had been a relatively stable long line of quiet churches.
Origins and Key Moments (1900-1915)
- 1901: Charles Fox Parham, a Holiness teacher, teaches that speaking in tongues is the "initial evidence" of Holy Spirit baptism at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas.
- 1906–1915: The Azusa Street Revival, led by William J. Seymour, begins in Los Angeles, drawing international attention and spreading the movement globally.
- 1907: First Pentecostal church building in America is dedicated in Keelville, Kansas, by Parham.
Chrysostom was not facing such apostasy way back in his day.
So he had no need to make any connection with what is happening with your denomination.
And, he was unchallenged when saying gluttony was the problem.
So be it....
I have met and spoken at length with Daniel Wallace who teaches Greek at DTS. Although we do not hold the exact same theology I found him to be a genuine person who loves sharing Jesus. On the occasions I visited with him we carried on a very productive dialogue about Greek grammar in various verses.
No basis?
Love never fails. As for prophecies, they will be brought to an end.
As for tongues, they will stop. As for knowledge, it will be brought
to an end." 1 Corinthians 13:8
.
If you will read my citation from Chrysostom below and you will see I am telling the truth about his interpretation of
Philippians 3:18-19 in which he equated making one's belly their god about over-indulging the appetites of the physical body rather than being excessively emotional
For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Pentecostal Church. Therefore, I cannot defend anything they might have said or done. However, I know much more about the Reformers and the way they carried out their campaign of persecution of the Jewish people as well as their mass murder of the Mennonites and Anabaptists does not in any way comport with the nature of Christ.
OK... gives us an example of how one's gourmet desires makes him an enemy of the cross.
This what is obvious to me....
Luke 7:33-36
For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend
of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”
When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house
and reclined at the table.
You don't know what you are talking about.
No basis for accusing people of having their belly as they're God. Again I asked you where you make the connection for saying the pentecostals of which there are a millions have their belly as they're God. If a verse says their God is their belly there's nothing in the passage that points to pentecostals.
Not to mention how bizarre your interpretation is to take that as referring to emotions as opposed to appetites like many commentators do which also fits better with Paul's usage elsewhere.
How does this response make any sense at all as a defense of your position? Surely you aren't trying to imply that there was something wrong with our Lord's control of His appetite.
According to el presidente? Having large numbers is equated to mean being correct?
If so?
Muslims must have the correct god according to your logic.
Because as of 2020, there are approximately 2 billion Muslims worldwide.
And, there are only millions of Pentecostals.
Yet the Pentecostals I had contact with, with few exceptions, were hyperemotional and legalistically cruel.
In latter years mental illness crept in.
Don't lie about me. I told you that wasn't my point. My point is that there are hundreds of millions of Pentecostals, and if you say their god is their belly... you are condemning a lot of people with a broad brush.
I did not say that large numbers makes a group right.
I've probably known more Pentecostals than you have. Of course, I haven't gravitated toward the hyperemotional types. Legalistically cruel? I've met a few like that, but I can think of people from some other movements where this is more prevalent.
You seem bizarrely legalistic when it comes to emotion.
You still haven't shown a scripture or logical argument for why being emotional, even ruled by emotion, even hypermotional equates with having emotion as their god.... or much less fulfill 'whose god is their belly.' Since you are accusing people of having another god, you should have some real support for it.
And in real life, Pentecostals vary in how emotional they are, and congregations vary in how 'emotoinal' their style is, also. Similar styles can be found with some Baptists and Holiness groups in the Appalachia and the Southeast, also.
Paul associates the 'belly' (κοιλία) in metaphorical sense with fornication in I Corinthians 6. You can find early commentators who associate this with appetites. Take a moment and look up all the commentaries on Bible Hub.
Yours is a rather unique interpretation.
No sense continuing.
See you at the Bema Seat.
Yes... God will allow you to be deceived.
So you can finally learn how not to be.
So you can better know God!
I'm sorry, but this comes off as a really dumb post considering the subject matter. Because you object to all these movements, that's supposed to go back in time somehow and make 'whose god is their bellies' refer to something have to do with being led by emotion? And what does that really have to do, really with all these occurrences in history?
Historically, there were the Epicureans, a movement that had evolved to believe that pleasure was the ultimate goal, and eating was part of that. The thought-map is the belly is associated with pleasure seeking. It's associated with fornication in-- in the 'meats for the belly and the belly for meats, and God shall destroy both it and them' passage in I Corinthians 6.
John Chrysostom was a native speaker of a language, a few hundred years out, but much closer to cultural trends.