Is frequent the theatre Sin?

</font>[/QUOTE]This has already been answered. Love requires that you live in a manner void of offense to God and the conscience of your brothers.

You said yourself that a husband is not loving his spouse if he does things—that he may have perfect liberty to do otherwise—that would grieve her whether under her nose or not.

I've shown you, with the Scriptures, that it's the same with your brothers in Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]Aaron,

I have even numbered the questions for you. I would like yes or no answers to these direct questions before I proceed with answering your last post. If you cannot directly answer these with a yes or no then we have nothing further to discuss.

You keep trying to avoid the biggest interpretational issues here and are simply using I Corinthians 8 to reinterpret I Corinthians 10 and Romans 14 and you actually never addressed Collosians chapter 2.

So please answer these questions with yes or no answers so we can proceed, feel free to elaborate on why you said yes or no but please give a yes or no first.

IFBReformer

 

The questions have been answered. I ignore certain points for several reasons, the most important of which are: 1) They don't further the discussion, like your little digression about Creation; 2) They're redundant, as are the numbered questions above; and 2) Posts in which every trifling issue is "answered" make for long, boring, and laborious reading.

I've stuck to the central issue in the discussion—love, and what genuine love demands. Once that is agreed upon, the answers to the points upon which you think issue is hinged become self-evident. You only think I haven't answered them, because you haven't accepted what I've said about love.

But in the interest of cooperation, I'll agree to your request with a condition of my own. I'm allowed to bring you back to some issues that you have avoided, or answered unsatisfactorily.

Agreed?

 

Agreed. If I have avoided answering something you said it was oversight on my part and not because I did not want to answer it.

So I await your answers.

IFBReformer

 

It is very real, but not absolute. No one has the liberty to violate another's conscience, not simply his "view on an issue." Now we may disagree upon what are "doubtful disputations" and valid matters of conscience, which certainly don't include every trifle, but that is another debate. What Paul means is that you are your brother's keeper. God has charged you, since you are the stronger, with the responsibility of supporting the weak.

Your contention that it means only in his presence fails on at least three levels: 1) It's no more than what the world would do itself; 2) it's not the tenor of 1 Cor. 8:13, even if 8:13 is hyperbole; 3) Love requires more.

Christian liberty is not license to do whatever you want, it is the freedom to do what you ought to do. A weaker brother is not supported by your pretenses in his presence, but by how he knows you live your life when he is not around. Knowing that he has a companion in his sacrifices and sufferings is tremendous support.

We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. Rom. 15:1-2

Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love...Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Eph. 5:2-21.

See the redundancy? I've answered this above. Yes, You and I are disagreed about what Christian liberty is and its "responsible practice."

Yes.

-er

No.

Hey, you're the one that wanted a yes or no.

This and the following are not a yes or no questions, and am thereby not constrained by our agreement to answer. Your reasoning here is the product of your views of love and support, which, as I've shown, fall short of the divine precepts. Unless you accept what I've said about love, you won't accept this answer. So, I will not argue this point further than what I say here. Neither will I agree to a condition that I go further until the premises that form our differing opinions on this point are resolved.

Why tell weaker brothers not to judge the stronger brothers...

He doesn't. He says "Let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth." The weaker is not allowed to judge another's conscience anymore than the stronger, but it is no support to the weak when your behavior is emboldening him to violate his conscience. To say that this admonition to the weak is a green light for you to live as you please, undoes all Paul has already said about your responsibility to support him. He has said straight out we are not to live to please ourselves.

[/b]...and the stronger brother would never act on his freedom?[/b]

He is acting on his freedom by not demanding his rights. This is the proper exercise of liberty.

Is there a question in there somewhere? I have provided abundant Scriptural support. You simply have not responded to it.

 

My questions are:

1) You say that love does not demand you consider the weaker's conscience outside his presence. How is that "laying down one's life for his friends"? or any more than the world practices?

2) You said 1 Cor. 8:13 is hyperbole to make a point. What is your evidence that it is hyperbole, and what's the point if it means you can do what you want as long as your not in sight of your brother?

I've made several statements concerning love that you need to respond to.

 

I forgot my smilie. I was joking here.

 

If you mean by 'absolute' that we cannot practice our liberty in all locations at all times - then we are in full agreement. If, however, you mean by 'absolute' that our freedom is only as real as us being able to practicing things that all Christians can agree are acceptable then I believe based on the totality of the passages we have discussed you are wrong.

When I said 'view on an issue' for this conversation I was talking of convictions - sorry I did not make that more clear.

You just opened the can of worms here? And no this is very applicable to this debate?

So according to you view of the scriptures, movie theater attendance is not a 'doubtful disputation' or a 'valid matter of conscience' and is not a 'trifle'? By what measuring system doing you determine what are 'doubtful disputations', 'valid matters of conscience' and 'trifles'? I am very, very curious how you will answer this.

My contention is that it means only his presense is built upon a collective view of Romans 14, I Corinthians 8 and I Corinthians 10 combined. If I Corinthians 8 was the only passage in the New Testament on the practice of Christian liberty I might say your argument was much stronger - but it is not.

1) It's no more than what the world would do itself;

So do we need to add artificial rules to do different than the world? I know some very ethical and strict unsaved people. Do we need to be stricter than them? What about some buddist monks? They live a pretty strict and harsh lifestyle - do we need to be stricter than them?

Colossians 2
"20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their selfimposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

2) it's not the tenor of 1 Cor. 8:13, even if 8:13 is hyperbole;

I agree with you and as I have said, if this were the only passage in the New Testament on Christian liberty you would have a much stronger argument - but it is not, we cannot ignore Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10.

Paul would not tell the weaker brother that "the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does"(Romans 14:3 NIV) if the stronger brother would never eat meat. That would make no sense at all! I must take this very important phrase into account when reading I Corinthians 8. You all but ignore it because it does not fit your preconceived view of what love is.

Love requires more.

Love requires me to act responsibly with my liberty in the presense of my brother, you say love requires me to take on the standards of my weaker brother. The scriptures you have quoted do not support such an idea. Again I repeat - if Paul wanted the stronger brother to take on the standards of the weaker brothers, why - why - why would he tell the weaker brother not judge the stronger for eating - if this could never happen in your view?

We agree "Christian liberty is not license to do whatever you want" but Christian liberty is not just "the freedom to do what you ought to do". Christian liberty is the freedom to act on my beliefs(based on the scriptures) of what is right or wrong in a responsible manner.

So I need to be "a companion in his sacrifices and sufferings is tremendous support." when his sacrifices and sufferings may be as Colossians 2 puts it - "selfimposed worship" and "harsh treatment of the body" which "have an appearance of wisdom" but are no more than the commands and doctrines of men?

The same Paul who told us to "bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves"(Rom. 15) also told us to " 16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

The same Paul who told us to submit ourselves to one another and walk in love(Eph. 5:2-21) also told us to "Let not then your good be evil spoken of"(Romans 14:16) and this was the same Paul who asked "for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?"(I Cor 10:29-30).

Lets take your answer a piece at a time here to see if it makes sense:

"He doesn't" - you say this as the first part of your response to my question but then you quote the verse that directly constradicts your own answer - "Let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth." Who is him that "eateth not" - is this not the weaker brother? So the one who "eateth not"[weaker brother] is not to judge "him that eateth"[stronger brother].


"The weaker is not allowed to judge another's conscience anymore than the stronger, but it is no support to the weak when your behavior is emboldening him to violate his conscience."

The verse here says nothing about judging another's conscience(what he believes is right or wrong) it talks specifically of judging one's actions based off his conscience. That I should not ebolden someone to violate their coscience we agree on, but apparently Paul did not agree with you that "him that eateth" was doing what you say I would be doing or else he did not have to tell the weaker brother not to judge his brothers action(eating) based off his conscience.


"To say that this admonition to the weak is a green light for you to live as you please, undoes all Paul has already said about your responsibility to support him. He has said straight out we are not to live to please ourselves."

Again I ask - ""Let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth." - this is not an admonition to weak? Then who is it an admonition to? Who is him that eateth not based on the context of this entire chapter? Who is him that eateth based on the context of this chapter?

And you are very correct in asserting that this verse does make our Christian liberty real and not theorectical - this verse creates a large crack in your whole argument. We can actually have a different conviction that another brother and act on that conviction, but we must do so in a responsible manner which includes not doing it in his presense.

What you say - that we cannot act on our Christian liberty at anytime even outside the presense of the weaker brother actually "undoes all Paul has already said" about the weaker brother not judging the stronger for eating. He has no need to say it. You would have the reader of the scripture simply ignore the stronger brother eating meat as only theorectical and never a real possiblity.

IFBReformer

 

Again you assume that "laying down one's life for his friends" means taking on their standards and implementing those standards at all times in your own life. The scriptures never tell us that, you have to read into that. Again as I said previously, in regards to the world, we do not need to add artifical rules to be different than the world. God has given us all the rules we need and if we act on those we will be different than the world.

This an excellant question and I would be happy to clear this up for you - because this really is the crux of our disagreement.

1 Corinthians 8:13
"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

Romans 14:2-3
2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

1 Corinthians 10:25-26
"25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof."

In I Corinthians 8 we have Paul saying he would never eat meat again if it causes a weaker brother to stumble and this same Paul telling the stronger brother to eat any meat sold in the market in I Corinthians 10. This same Paul tells the weaker brother not judge the stronger brother for eating meat in Romans 14.

So in two places we have the stronger brother eating meat, and in one Paul says he will never eat meat again if it causes his brother to stumble. What am I to make of this?

Do the scriptures contradict, Is Paul telling believers to eat meat and then saying they should never eat meat? Or is Paul trying to make a strong point - using a hyperbole, in I Corinthians 8 towards the stronger brother to get him to realize how important it is for him to exercise his freedom in a responsible manner?

I believe he is trying to get the stronger brother to realize his freedom must be exercised(not just theorized) in a responsible manner.

If we take Romans 14 for a moment, and look at the structure. We sing a sort of ping-pong conversation going on. Paul first addresses the weaker brother, then the stronger, then the weaker then the stronger. He concludes the chapter addressing the stronger brother.

But my point I have contended for this whole time, is that in Romans 14 Paul is speaking of the real actions(not just conscience beliefs) of the stronger brother and telling the weaker brother not to judge his actions - "him that eateth".)

This must be included in any intrepretation of other passsages such as I Corinthians 8, it cannot be ignored, written off as irrelavent or in any way left out.

Could you just paste some of the more pointed ones in another post and I will respond. I will say this though before, that I believe you are coming to this whole topic with a preconceived notion of what Christian(brotherly love) is. You read this preconceived notion into the three chapters we are discussing and it causes you to ignore any verses which seem to suggest that the stronger brother may still act on his convictions, exercise his freedom but do it in a responsible manner(outside the presense of the brother who may have a differing conviction on this matter.)

IFBReformer

 

Very good posts Larry,
Very responsible use of the text.

Per your last paragraph, I agree we all approach these issues, and unfortunately most of the time our interpretation of the scriptures as well, through the filter of our own experience and viewpoint. I think your last two posts especially are very good efforts to approach the text and derive a principle or principles from them, not the other way round.

 

You have no idea what my convictions concerning the theatre are, and my measuring system in determining valid matters of conscience are irrelevant. You are the one arguing that Rom. 14 et al is applicable to frequenting the theatre. For the sake of this argument, I am accepting that premise.

That means that, for this argument, the theatre really is something that God has made to be received with thanksgiving, like food, and it is only the vestigal remnants of pagan (or Jewish) ignorance and superstition that prevents one from partaking in good conscience.

That's what I'm saying. So, no. Between you and me the argument is not about how to determine valid matters of conscience or whether frequenting the theatre is right or wrong. In our argument, not only is it a valid matter of conscience, it is a right and good and holy thing. Christ has purged all exhibitionism.

My contention is your application of Rom. 14 et al. I'm showing you that your conclusions about its instruction are erroneous.

It was one of Christ's indictments of worldly notions of love. ...what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Was he adding an artificial rule to be different? Was His commandment somehow more than what genuine love demands? No. By contrasting the two he was showing them that love as practiced by the world is in reality cold and indifferent. That's my purpose in stating such. How is the love you're showing your brother more than that which the world shows? I take it from your objection that it isn't any different.

I don't ignore it at all. You're assuming that the one who is eating, if he is practicing his liberty responsibly, is doing so outside the constraints of necessity or service. You're assuming that the one who is eating is doing so merely because he's hankerin' for a hunk'a'beef, like your reasons for going to the theatre, when to eat as such is clearly outside the pale of Paul's exhortations and example in the passages we're disputing.

You're also assuming that he's practicing his liberty responsibly. Both assumptions are wholly arbitrary, but you can come to your conclusions no other way.

The weaker brother will always be exposed to the more knowledgable who behave proudly and irresponsibly. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. He should be careful not to judge. How can you take that to mean that the practice of love is only in his presence? Again, what do ye more than others?

Answered above and in previous posts.

More to come. I'm out of time for now.

 

No one is ignoring anything. Just as 1 Cor. 11:5 does not negate nor mitigate Paul's instruction 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Romans 14:3 neither negates nor mitigates 1 Cor. 8:13. The one who abstains from meat should not judge the one who doesn't, AND the one who doesn't abstain (for conscience sake) should abstain for the sake of his weaker brother. There is no difficulty here whatever.

The stronger doesn't actually have to be eating meat to be judged for his opinion, The knowledge that you have no conscience toward meat is all that's required. The weaker may abide your opinion, but your action, your life, is what will either support or destroy him.

Where do you get "in the presence of my brother?" You're just assuming that too. What if you were going to the theatre and you ran into your brother in the parking lot? (Many theatres are in malls. One doesn't have to be going to the theatre to be in the parking lot.) What will you say to him? "Please leave so that I can attend this movie?"

Will you lie to him and say that you're not actually going to the theatre so that when he leaves he leaves without the knowledge that you're doing something "wrong?"

How would love dictate that you respond to the situation?

Paul would simply not frequent the theatre. He didn't keep his opinion from the weaker brothers. He said he was convinced that nothing is evil in and of itself, and he said that we all have perfect liberty to eat meat. He did not hide his opinion from anyone. He did not "take on their standards" and begin preaching that we should abstain from certain meats.

He did not change his mind, but followed after charity. If eating would offend his brother, he would not eat meat as long as the world stood. This is not hyperbole. Paul was a teacher. He would receive the greater condemnation because to whom much is given, much is required. Paul was not present with the Romans or Corinthians when he wrote his letters, yet the weaker brothers had perfect confidence that even apart from them, he was living in a manner so as not to offend their conscience.

He exercised himself to have a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

But in all your verbage explaining that Paul used hyperbole here, you haven't explained the point of his hyperbole. How does saying "I won't eat meat until the end of the world" illustrate the fact that you're only to be courteous in his presence?

1 Corinthians 10:29 ...for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? Liberty is not an action, but a state of being, a matter of conscience, knowledge, a state of mind. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman.

You still haven't told me how you are laying down your life. What good are you foregoing for the sake of your brothers? What inconvenience or pain are you willingly enduring? What sacrifices are you making for the sake of your brothers in Christ?

You're just waiting for him to leave your presence so you can live how you want? Big love there! What a sacrifice! How inspiring!

The only thing you're doing is wresting the passages to say you have the liberty not to love.

Now that we're back to the key point, love, the proper understanding of which will clear up your (and dave's) misunderstandings of these other lesser points, please respond to my rebuttals of your assertion that the love for your family is different than your love for the family of God.

 

Aaron,

Just wanted to let you know I am going to respond to your posts, I have just been short on time the last few days - hopefully it will be soon.

IFBReformer

 

The love I am showing for my brother is different in it motivation. My love as in all my right actions whatever they may be, whether taking care of my family , serving in my local church, or whatever good or right things I do(which God enables me to do) are done toward God and with a view of his glory.

You contention is that my love exercised is no different because on the surface it looks like the same action, and we need to do more somehow, yet it is not more that we need to do, it is who need to be doing all our actions toward and for, the glory of God.

As I pointed out to you earlier, God did not seem to have a problem with the Israelites having a "hankerin' for a hunk'a'beef" after the manna incident. Yes in that incident they should have been content with what God gave them, but this does not mean it was wrong to desire meat or enjoy it as you have asserted. You never answered the texts I provided to you about this:

Deuteronomy 12:20(NIV)
20 When the LORD your God has enlarged your territory as he promised you, and you crave meat [“longeth to eat flesh” KJV] and say, "I would like some meat," then you may eat as much of it as you want [“whatsoever thy soul lusteth after” KJV].

I assuming he's practicing his liberty responsibly? Its right there in the passage that he is:

Romans 14:5-6
" 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

No assumption here, Paul never makes the one who eats meat to look bad here at all. It can become bad, if meat is not eaten responsibly(and this is what he warns of). In the same verse, Paul shows that the one who eats and the one who abstains can both do so equally to the Lord.

Again this not the context of Romans 14 at all. It is not about the weaker brother "be exposed to the more knowledgable who behave proudly and irresponsibly". The entire begining of the chapter is showing that one can eat to Lord and one can abstain to the Lord. The weaker should not judge his brother for eating and the stronger should not look down on his brother for not. It really is that simple.

Yes then in the last half Paul goes addresses the stronger brother telling him to be careful of how he exercises this freedom to eat meat that he has discussed in the first half of the chapter.

"what do ye more than others", I love my brother toward the glory of Christ, the unbeliever who does a similar action of love(which you call only common courtesy) does so only for his own benefit and not toward God.


IFBReformer

 

It is interesting that you use 1 Cor. 11:5(women prophesy) and 1 Cor. 14:34-35(women to remain silent in the church) as these example actually works against your position.

If someone were to take 1 Cor. 14:34-35(women to remain silent in the church) as you do I Cor 8 they would conclude a Christian women could never speak or teach. But since we see know Paul told older women to teach other younger women and children in other passages we know this we must interpret 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in light of other passages of the New Testament.

If we take the totality of scripture, we can see that women should not teach or usurp authority over a man in the organizaed assembly(therefore women cannot be Pastors or Deacons) but this does not proclude them from teach women's groups or children.

If you took this same approach with Romans 14,I Cor 8 and I Cor 10 you would see what I and many Christians are saying. But you continue to ignore the one who eats meat and gives thanks to God and right it off as some kind of abration from the norm and it just can't mean what the begining of the chapter seems to say.

How could two believers, not only have a different conviction on something, but also act on the conviction? This is what will continue to baffle you until you take the totality of these passages.

Help me make sense of this sentence:

"the one who doesn't abstain (for conscience sake) should abstain for the sake of his weaker brother"

The one who does'nt abstain should abstain, if he is not abstaining then that means he is eating. If by this you mean - abstains in the presense of his brother, I am with you. But if he abstains at all times, the he cannot possibly be the one who "does'nt abstain", he would be more accurately the one "who used to not abstain but does now".

Again, Paul talks here of real actions based on convictions(whether eating or not eathing), not just the convictions themselves.
This is point you continue to dodge, or explain away as the irresponsible behavior of the stronger brother, when it is not potrayed as irresposible(it can become such, but the in the first section of the chapter it is not).

No, he does not have to be eating to be judged for his opinion, but clearing in the first part of Romans 14, he is eating and the weaker brother is not to judge him for eating.

It is not just judging for his opinion, it is judging him for eating, that is clearing there "the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does".

Where we get in the presense of our brother is that the first half of chapter 14 of Romans deals with people eating and abstaining on equal terms. You completely miss this. It would make no sense for Paul to talk of those who eat and those who do not eat(not just believe, but actually act on their convictions) as both doing to so to the Lord, and the weaker should not judge the stronger for eating and the stronger should not look down on the weaker for not - only for Paul to do as you say he is doing, and dismantle everything he has said in the begining by telling the stronger not to ever act on these convictions, that theres are only theorectical as you would have us believe.

The other way I believe it means in his presense is from I Corinthians 10, where Paul speaks of an unbeliever inviting him to supper, and we can disagree about who the "any man" is, ( I believe it is a weaker brother in attendance) but here Paul, for the sake of someone's conscience at the meal, does not eat meat.

But then in the next verse, he makes it clear that if someone had not raised this matter at this meal - "30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?" I Cor 10:30

So there is a difference in whose presense you are in as to how you will exercise your liberty.

No I would not ask him to leave. I would not tell him what I was doing at the mall unless he asked. Usually if I am going to mall I might do a little shopping anyway, so I am not lying by telling him I going shopping.

But if it really came down to it, I would tell him I was taking my wife or children to show. If he judges me for that he has just violated Romans 14:3. You see there is a difference between me putting my freedom in my brother's face and him casually seeing me in public doing some activity he disagrees with.

If I were to come to this believers house and invite him to a show, or make fun of him because he won't go then I would be in violation of Romans 14. If I approach him at church and start talking of a movie I saw over the weekend at the show I am in violation of Romans 14. But if I act outside his presense, and he happens to see me and judges me then he is wrong.

"...For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?" I Cor 10:29-30

Actually I think I have, but here goes again. A hyberbole is an exageration to make a point. It is just that, an exageration and not literal(Otherwise why would he tell them to buy meat in the market and why would he speak of the one who eats meat as eating to the Lord). The point of Paul's hyperbole is to teach the stronger brother to be very careful in the exercise of his convictions - its that easy.

Actually liberty in this case is speaking of action, for look at the next verse, Paul does not speak of a conviction only, but his action upon that conviction:

"...For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?" I Cor 10:29-30

And actually I was believe I was speaking of Romans 14:3, but even so, it also apply here in I Cor 10 when you see it in context of verse 30.

I am laying down my life by not insisting my brother must have an act upon my conviction the same as he should do toward me.

"What good are you foregoing for the sake of your brothers?"

I don't ask them to see a show with me, the same as I would not turn my television on when I have company over who does not agree with television. I am giving up something I would find enjoyable in the presense of my brother - now your insistance that this is meaningless finds not Biblical merit whatsoever.

Actually I am not waiting for him to leave, but love the company. I have brothers who believe Theaters or even the TV is wrong and I respect them and have good fellowship with them. If I could not wait for them to leave, then that would be a problem and I am puting that before them.

The only thing you're doing is wresting the passages to say you have the liberty not to love.

The only thing you are doing is wresting the passages to agree with what you think loving your brother is and that is not to act on you convictions if they are different than your brothers - that idea is not supported by the scriptures. The responsible use of our freedom, is however clearly presented in these passages.

I am out of time for today so will respond to your last paragraph about love for family next time I have some time.

IFBReformer

 

And now to your rebuttals about family love:

My Response:
Does the Bible ever say we should sacrifice our families for our Christian brothers? It does not even tell us to for Christ outside of them leaving us because we are Christians. The Bible tells us if our unbelieving family wants to leave us because of our faith, then let them go. But if they want to stay, then we must stay with them and we are obligated to them.

But you still failed to answer my contention that the first way we put our religion into practice is by caring for our families -
1 Timothy 5:4?

Yes they are lesser in a eternal sense, but in the physical earthly sense they are not. I am obligated Biblically to first care for the emotional, spiritual(try to lead them to Christ) and physical needs of my family.

No where Biblically could you support that I am supposed to make sure someone at my church is fed before my wife and children are, even if they are unbelievers. The first way I put my religion into practice is by caring for them, if I don't I am worse than an infidel.

I say all this to say this relationship is different, and has different requirements than a relationship that I have with a brother Christian.

I live with my wife and children - they are under my direct authority, I do not live with a Christian brother at church, he is not under my authority nor am I under his.

Do I get to discipline my brother for disobeying my rules? My son or daughter I am obligated to discipline for disobeying me.

Please show me one passage of the New Testament that says I need to take care of the needs of Christian brothers outside my physical family BEFORE I take care of my physical families needs.

In "all ways", please support this with scripture. In some ways yes - again where does the scriptures tell me I need to provide for believers outside my wife and children before I care for them?

If the unbeliever departs, then we let them go, that is loving Christ more than them. But what does that have to do with when our families stay with us? Then we have an obligation to care for them and Paul said the first way we put our religion into practice is by caring for our physical family - if we do not we are worse than an infidel. This comparison is never used with any other relationship.

I was not speaking of my theorectial unsaved wife(my actual wife is a believer) getting all pouty about me refusing to something that would wound some other brother's conscience. I don't know where you go that from. It started with you trying to compare things I might do with my wife or children with what I would do for any other believer and I asserted to you correctly that the relationship I share with my wife and children is different.

Certainly some parts of it are lesser(the spiritual) while other parts of it have greater demands(the physical).

You tried to turn my relationship with my wife and children to allow you to say I should do even more for a believer , when the relationships are different.

Again please show me where I am supposed to care for the physical, emotional or even spiritual needs of a believer outside my physical family first. Yes if they choose to leave, then all bets are off, but if they stay I have an obligation as a Christian man to care for them and try to win them to the Lord.

IFBReformer

 

I wanted to revisit this quote of yours because I did not include your full quote and that is needed for the point I really wanted to make:

"The one who abstains from meat should not judge the one who doesn't, AND the one who doesn't abstain (for conscience sake) should abstain for the sake of his weaker brother. There is no difficulty here whatever."

The real issue I had here with this quote was how would the one who abstains from meat ever get the chance to judge someone who is doesn't abstain(not just belief, but acts on his conviction)?

I know your reply would be the only way this could happen is if a stronger brother was eating and he should'nt be. The problem with this is it does not the tenor of Romans 14. Paul does not tell the weaker brother not to judge the stronger brother for eating - "even though he really should'nt be" as you would like to believe. He tells him not to judge the stronger brother because they both eat or don't eat to the Lord and each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

This is a point you continue to miss, because it throws off your whole idea of what you believe Christian brotherly love is.

IFBReformer

 

I'm done.

You'll agree, that love is the key to correctly interpreting this passage, if you and I aren't agreed on the foundation, then we'll never come to terms with all the incidentals the proper understanding of which depends upon a proper understanding of genuine love.

You want to make a difference between the commandment to love your wife and the commandment to love one another, but there's no difference. You admitted that it could not be said a man loved his wife if he did things that grieved her even though he had perfect liberty under the Gospel to do those things (e.g. have a beer once in a while) and even though he was careful not to imbibe in her presence. The man has no commandment to obey his wife. The only commandment he has is to love her as Christ loved the Church.

The same commandment is given to us as brothers in Christ, that we love one another as Christ has loved us.

There is no difference in the commandment or the love of which is spoken. Don't confuse your nuptial privileges with love. Also, you will look in vain to find any place where I said that a man can abdicate his domestic responsibilities simply because they're earthly and lower than the bond which makes us one in Christ. That's just a conclusion you jumped to, because you don't understand love, and you don't understand unity.

You cannot squeeze from the text in Rom. 14 et al any kind of condition that your regard for the weaker brother, whom you are to live to support, is only in his presence. It still fails to agree to love's demands, and is no more than the world would do. In short, it is cold and indifferent. It is self-love that you are practicing.

And so your sacrifice is simply that you don't have the privilege of talking about movies to the man, or that you can't invite him to see The Incredibles? Real inspiring, brother. Brings a tear to my eye. No regard for your own life there! That's no love I could boast of. I would boast of Amy Carmichael, or J. Hudson Taylor, C. T. Studd, Richard Wurmbrand, and the list goes on, for the real sacrifices that they have made that the work of Christ be not evil spoken of. And of Paul. Paul! Who would eat no meat as long as the earth stood if it put a stumbling block in the way of his brother!

Now there's love.

Go thou and do likewise.

I'll make one more post to respond to some your pretexts, but I'm pressed for time myself.

 

That's not what I asserted. Not even close. You took off on a tangent about pleasure seeking. I said doing anything simply for the pleasure of it is not a Christian motivation. In all things a Christian is to seek God's glory and the increase of His Kingdom. That is his joy. If you will go back to the posts, you will see that I am the one who asserted that enjoyment of those things which God has created to be received with thanksgiving is good.

That's because they were irrelevant and the discussion about pleasure seeking was beside the point anyway.

The "one man" and "another man" are not specific men of the Romans to which Paul is writing. Paul is simply putting forth here the reasons one man does one thing or another in the Gospel. If the problem among the Corinthians was not also among the Romans, there would have been no occassion for Romans 14. The danger here was the same. The stronger were destroying their weaker brothers. They were not eating meat in ignorance. They had knowledge as well, and knowledge "puffeth up". They were not walking charitably (vs 15), and that is not a responsible practice of Christian liberty.

Paul concludes by saying, that it's best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that will cause your brother to stumble. There's nothing in there about that behavior being only in his physical presence. That's no more than what the world would do, and there is no sacrifice involved in that kind of love.

An hyperbole is an exaggeration. Period.

I've read no admonition in the Scriptures I would classify as hyperbole. Another passage commonly misnamed hyperbole is Matt. 5:30, "And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

This is not exaggeration. It's not literal, but it's not exaggeration. The proper discipline of separating yourself from something which is causing you, or another, to stumble (be it ever so good otherwise) is as intense and traumatic as cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye. It can actually be more so in some cases. In fact, compared to the pains of hell, self-mutilation would be a Sunday school picnic. If anything, Matt. 5:30 is understatement!

But my point is, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the "hyperbole" (actually, the figure of speech is metaphor) and its point. And you haven't presented anything even close. "I will not eat meat as long as the world stands" really means, "I'll eat it whenever I get the hankerin' as long as yer not around"?

That's insane.

 

I've just read the last three pages, and there is something I need explained to me. What is meant by the word "weaker?" Why would any brother be called "weaker?" If we are to follow the standards of the weaker brother out of love for that brother, are we not just reinforcing that "weakness," whatever that weakness is, which is what I need to find out.

 

bookworm, great question. Here is the main passage in question, and also the one where Paul refers to "weak" christians. To your second question, I think Paul clearly teaches that while you have to be careful not to use your liberty in a way that causes a brother to sin, you have a responsibility to edify them and build them up by teaching them to analyze situations Biblically, and retrain their conscience to follow biblical prinicples. I apologize in advance for the size of this post, but the whole chapter is relevant.