Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[Szdfan]

Do you have any commentary, then, on such language being used in the OT and NT?

Not without spending some time studying this carefully. It's certainly not the way Jesus approached sinners - closer to the way he treated the self righteous Pharisees.

John, you’ve said several times that “infestation” is biblical language. Which specific passages describe people or categories of people as an “infestation”?

[barnhart]

One thing that was clear to sinners around Jesus was that he really loved them even though he didn't downplay sin. Why wouldn't Anabaptists gravitate to Jesus example rather than fall back to what is "biblical"?

This has implications deep into Anabaptist theology which differentiates between the biblical mandates given for previous eras and the example of Jesus which is for the church.

[JohnH]

John, you’ve said several times that “infestation” is biblical language. Which specific passages describe people or categories of people as an “infestation”?

It's already been hashed out in this thread, but suffice to say that using very negative laguage to refer to classes or groups of people (based on their behaviour, such as e.g. a term like "all horse thieves") is through both the OT and NT. Probably the best example, though, for the purpose of this argument with you is this passage:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

I would not be comfortable at all in my own speech to use even a well-known phrase like the Epimenides paradox to then make a blanket statement that one has to really be on the watch for Cretans because Cretans tend to be false teachers. Yet there it is, right in the OT. I think our own culture isn't comfortable with making statements like that, and that's OK, but we have to accept that's simply our own culture and not based on some biblical principle.

[JohnH]

Feel free to express your opinion on these things. As I have said, I would really want to spend more time studying this carefully in the Bible before commenting further.

Here's one thing that's very clear to me: one of the things that the Pharisees really hated about Jesus was the way he treated lepers, sinners, tax collectors, and others as fully human, beloved by God. Because I put the example and teachings of Jesus first, that's where I start.

Well, the people I was referring to our people like Scott Bessent (notorious open homosexual who also takes liberties with punching people); Tulsi Gabbard (appears to have conducted an affair whilst her husband was dealing with bone cancer); Pam Bondi (live-in boyfriend); Kash Patel (live-in girlfriend); Pete Hegseth (long list of admitted affairs, something like 5 in his first marriage); Richard Grinnel (formerly had Tulsi Gabbard's now-former job, and also an open homosexual); the list goes on.

These aren't downtrodden people. These are powerful people installed to powerful positions. Some of them are quite self righteous. Some of them even have policies and have engaged in political action I like and agree with.

I also think the example of John the Baptist and of Jesus would be that he would have had a good witness to them, but also called them to repent. I don't think it would be wrong to say that Herod's administration was also infested with immoral people. The answer was for such people to accept Jesus' offer of grace.

With that said, I'm going to stand by my statement that the current admininstration is infested with people with problems with sexual immorality.

[Szdfan]

John, you’ve said several times that “infestation” is biblical language. Which specific passages describe people or categories of people as an “infestation”?

It's already been hashed out in this thread, but suffice to say that using very negative laguage to refer to classes or groups of people (based on their behaviour, such as e.g. a term like "all horse thieves") is through both the OT and NT. Probably the best example, though, for the purpose of this argument with you is this passage:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

I would not be comfortable at all in my own speech to use even a well-known phrase like the Epimenides paradox to then make a blanket statement that one has to really be on the watch for Cretans because Cretans tend to be false teachers. Yet there it is, right in the OT. I think our own culture isn't comfortable with making statements like that, and that's OK, but we have to accept that's simply our own culture and not based on some biblical principle.

Thanks for the Scripture reference. I’m going to take a look at it later tonight and will respond after I’ve had a chance to study it.

I’m still unclear how this applies to another way you used this metaphor. None of this explains why you described Indian immigrants as an “infestation.” Are you saying that immigration is analogous to sexual immorality? If not, then what principle determines when calling people an “infestation” is appropriate?

[Valerie]

John, you’ve said several times that “infestation” is biblical language. Which specific passages describe people or categories of people as an “infestation”?

It's already been hashed out in this thread, but suffice to say that using very negative laguage to refer to classes or groups of people (based on their behaviour, such as e.g. a term like "all horse thieves") is through both the OT and NT. Probably the best example, though, for the purpose of this argument with you is this passage:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

I would not be comfortable at all in my own speech to use even a well-known phrase like the Epimenides paradox to then make a blanket statement that one has to really be on the watch for Cretans because Cretans tend to be false teachers. Yet there it is, right in the OT. I think our own culture isn't comfortable with making statements like that, and that's OK, but we have to accept that's simply our own culture and not based on some biblical principle.

Thanks for the Scripture reference. I’m going to take a look at it later tonight and will respond after I’ve had a chance to study it.

I’m still unclear how this applies to another way you used this metaphor. None of this explains why you described Indian immigrants as an “infestation.” Are you saying that immigration is analogous to sexual immorality? If not, then what principle determines when calling people an “infestation” is appropriate?

India is pagan-for the most part & severely persecutes Christians in some areas.
Missionary Amy Carmichael left her beautiful Ireland to reach the people of India for Christ (actually Apostle Thomas first brought Christianity to India.
When I was young, growing up, atheism seemed rare. Paganism extremely rare. So many antichrist and pagan people have come into America and these days now, atheism and paganism has really grown. Can it be a positive effect situation when so many come from other countries with false Religions?

[Judas Maccabeus]

The Church of God in Christ (Mennonite) holds a view of certain sins as "death sins." While most of us would agree that the wages of sin is death, among unbelievers, we simply don't have a hierarchy of sins. Sin is a state, which can be redeemed by the grace of God, received through repentance and faith. However, this classification of some sense as "death sins" tends to create a sense that there are simply some sins that really exist beyond the grace of God. In other words if one is guilty of one of these "death sins" one is worthy of death. I can't conceive of any other justification for using the term infestation.

My world view puts all persons as being individuals for whom Christ died, and thus within the reach of the grace of God, if they repent and believe, no exceptions.

J M,

This is a completely incorrect exhibition of our doctrines. If you wish, we could dialogue privately about this. Otherwise I will do so here.

A “death sin” is simply any sin you would be excommunicated for. Your church has them too. Nobody gets excommunicated for rolling a stop sign so they can get to McDonald’s 10 seconds faster. Everyone gets excommunicated for openly cheating on their wife. Make sense?

We do not believe any sin is beyond the reach of the grace of God and every excommunicated person we hope repents and returns to God’s grace. I have attended members’ meetings and raised my hand to reaccept people after such a thing many times.

I think Mr Bessent could repent and experience a joyful, victorious Christian life.

So why do you call them that? It implies that they are different than other sins. And it seems to open the door for the dehumanizing language such as “infestation “ which should only be used of the like of rodents and insects. Using that sort of terminology will certainly create confusion. And using a category of excommunicateable sins for unbelievers makes zero sense. How can a sin be excommunicateable for someone who is not in communion to begin with?

It would be much simpler to cut and past the COGICM version of the 1963 or maybe a point to a book like Kauffman’s “doctrines of the Bible “ so it could be clear what your group believes. Otherwise, we try to figure it out.

[QuietlyListening]

When I was young, growing up, atheism seemed rare. Paganism extremely rare. So many antichrist and pagan people have come into America and these days now, atheism and paganism has really grown. Can it be a positive effect situation when so many come from other countries with false Religions?

We may see more false religions but that doesn't mean we were a nation of believers. Yes, more went to church and we saw less overt in your face sin but it was still there- just hidden. Many church goers were just that- they went to church and because they did that they thought they were 'safe'. Today we see more plainly the sin that was more hidden. Maybe that is good in that the thinking that if you go to church you're ok. So I guess what I'm saying is that instead of being church goer non believers people are becoming outright atheistic or following other religions. Is one better than the other? One was folks fooling themselves and now they aren't. Just being in church will not save a person and just being there will not change them unless they are seeking.
Just how I have seen it over the years.

[JohnH]

I’m still unclear how this applies to another way you used this metaphor. None of this explains why you described Indian immigrants as an “infestation.” Are you saying that immigration is analogous to sexual immorality? If not, then what principle determines when calling people an “infestation” is appropriate?

I withdrew my statement about that since it didn’t communicate my intent and some others persuaded me it was not a good thing to say.

Any other questions? I feel like you tried to do another “gotcha”. Did you forget the thread where we discussed that? (And in any case, the OT often uses similar language, but culturally we often find things offensive these days that were fine in the OT and NT.)

[barnhart]

India is pagan-for the most part & severely persecutes Christians in some areas.
Missionary Amy Carmichael left her beautiful Ireland to reach the people of India for Christ (actually Apostle Thomas first brought Christianity to India.
When I was young, growing up, atheism seemed rare. Paganism extremely rare. So many antichrist and pagan people have come into America and these days now, atheism and paganism has really grown. Can it be a positive effect situation when so many come from other countries with false Religions?

American culture has always expressed a strong disposition to follow other gods than Jesus because we had other goals. We have even made up new religions out of whole cloth using Jesus' name attached to devious ideas like war, materialism, reincarnation and nationalism. Using the same criteria to formulate a statement like "India is pagan", we could conclude we are pagan as evidenced our determination to create a different Jesus. From the founding fathers we attacked his divinity, sliced up the Bible, made him into a hierarchical ruler who ordained genocide, war and enslavement.

Jesus said contamination of a person comes from within, not from without. Sealing up the borders of a nation is of no value in this regard, the enemy works just as well or better and more deceitfully from within.