# Uncommon ground



## MW (Jul 12, 2006)

It might be worthwhile discussing the apostle Paul's anti-idolatrous section of 1 Cor. 8-10. Although an idol is nothing in the world, yet because it exists to the conscience of another, it must be treated as if it had an existence.

How does this bare on the issue of interacting with people who hold basically different philosophies of being and knowledge to ourselves?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 12, 2006)

Here's one way of speaking to that person:

I'll agree with you momentarily, for argument's sake. OK, I'll allow that idol is "something in this world." Well, what does that entail? Don't you believe X? Well then, how can you square X with the belief that the idol is "something in this world? You are either going to have to accept X and get rid of the idol, or accept the idol and get rid of X (no matter how vital). Or, you are going to have to accept the fact that you may hold on to the idol, and hold on to X without cause or justification. You are going to end up in meaninglessness, because the things are fundamentally incompatible."

This is the moment of epistemological self-consciousness. And it is also the reason why all false wolrd-views create societies and cultures that are hopeless and devoid of any meaning, or which reduce meaning to a tiny circle of referential coherence, which must remain tightly circumscribed, so as not to allow inside any threat to its illusory stability.


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2006)

Thankyou Bruce.

I notice also that the apostle tells us to curtail our liberty lest we offend. That seems to me to suggest that we should do more than allow their view for the sake of the argument, but that we should be ready to treat the other worldview as if it is real, because it is real to that person's conscience.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 12, 2006)

But isn't Paul speaking to believers about other believers? We must forbear with brothers. We must grant them more room for the Holy Spirit to work in his way with them. At the same time, don't we want them to be gently confronted with their errors, and compassionately guided to the place where they too can see that the idol is "nothing"?

The difference (as I see it) with the unbeliever is simply this. Not that we don't have compassion on them, but we realize that it their entire intellect (as well as affections and will) that is dragging them down to hell. They are totally depraved. The greatest compassion we can have toward them is to expose to their conscious mind the "futility of their mind." That's what Paul calls it. We want to remove those blinders, if the Holy Spirit will allow such to work as a saving glance toward God. If that sight results in hardening, and the re-erection of the walls of ignorance, we must pray that they might be taken down again, permanently; and work to that end ourselves, if God should give us another opportunity.

Everyone is regenerated in a "shattering" experience. But perhaps it would be better (individually speaking) if they were fully aware of the completeness of the reorganization of their thoughts that ought to be occuring? Then with the careful pastoral work of the church, sound preaching and methodology, the rebuilding in God's image could be begun on a foundation scraped clean.

How many Arminian-turned-Calvinist wish they had begun their walk, not by "adding Christ" to what they thought was an essentially fine-working mental grid--quickly resuming many, many of their former ways of thinking, feeling, and acting essentially unchanged--but rather as someone whose will and intellect had been shattered on the anvil of God's workshop. And who were self-conscious of the radical reworking of their whole outlook, right from the beginning?


In short, we accept believers as we find them, and seek their best by various means, granting due allowance for the work of the Holy Spirit (but without compromise). They are heading in the right direction.

And with unbelievers, we understand that however kindly we act, we are dealing with a person blythely reposed in a burning building, who is actively building barriers to the knowledge of God every instant, who is travilling the WRONG direction. If I agree with his assessment of reality at any point, I am giving him confidence in himself at that point. I am encouraging him in autonomy at that point. I agree with Paul Manata--we must Press the Antithesis with the unbeliever


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2006)

1 Cor. 10:27-29 speaks of those that "believe not."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 12, 2006)

And what does he say there? If it be the unbeliever who suggests the fact, go ahead and offend them, and refuse the meat--precisely because that fellow is self-conscious about such meat being party to his falsehoods. 

But I rather subscribe to the opinon of those (e.g. Ch. Hodge) that the party speaking thus in v. 28 is the same weak-brother spoken about at length already, not the unbeliever throwing the banquet at all. It is _he_ who raises the scruple. Then at v. 29 where Paul speaks of the other man's conscience--Paul means the conscience of the weak-believer raising the objection, not the unbeliever, who would scarcely be thinking of the idolatry.


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2006)

There is nothing in the context to show that the apostle has a believer in mind. As he bring the section to a conclusion he says, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God," verse 32. So I don' think the conscience he has been speaking about can be distinguished into believers and unbelievers. It includes both.

In the apostle's charitable system, we are to consider the conscience of unbelievers, and seek to act in such a way as it is not offensive even to their own belief system.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 13, 2006)

You mean, perhaps, the immediate context of the three verses. But I would say Hodge effectively argues that the flow of the larger section (to which you refer in the openning post) that the speaker is one and the same with the same conscience bound believer for the last nearly three chapters.

As for verse 32, I do not think that a final, summary statement provides sufficient cause to overturn our understanding of vv. 28-29 if the previous three chapters of exegesis consistently favors an interpretation of "believer."

What does Paul mean by "offense" in v. 32? Does he mean "don't offend them on any account"? Surely it cannot mean that. Does he appeal to the "collective consciences" of all these groups? No, but to groups with varying prejudices common to each. Some of those (certainly not all) would be conscience matters. But even there, certain conscience-matters of unbelievers would require an offense, simply to remain true to the gospel. Should Winfrith/Boniface have *not* chopped down the sacred oak? Now that was surely an offense to the Saxons, and a well-placed one at that. Is this a "wisdom" issue. I think sometimes it is.

Regardless, Peace


----------



## MW (Jul 13, 2006)

"Them that believe not" in v. 27 has set the context. I am not reading it back from v. 32; just showing from v. 32, that the discussion includes unbelievers. Giving no offence is within the context of things which are lawful for us, v. 23.

Blessings!


----------

