[tlj009]

No. I would be sinning by causing him to drink which would be going against his conscience.

I don't understand this comment in response to that quote.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

He goes on in 9:1 to discuss what he could do.....as an apostle. He made what he was discussing in Chapter 8 personal, using himself as an example in Chapter 9. And the point was, as was Paul's point, that when it affects others you should abstain. Not if it affects others but when it does.

But yet his point was detailed. It wasn't that they could bully your freedom either.

1 Corinthians 8[9] But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
[10] For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
[11] And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
[12] But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
[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.

Paul discusses meat sacrificed to idols offending his brethren. Paul says that it is a SIN to wound a brother in such a way. This not a "horrible misreading of the passage". This is exactly what the passage says. So I will repeat what I said earlier, when a brother comes to you and tells you that he is weakened by what you are doing, however within your rights it is, you need to carefully consider abstaining. I think that you need a good reason not to abstain.

However, what you said is that Paul then said eating meat was wrong. That was patently untrue. Paul detiled how and when it was okay to eat meat and it involved anytime except in the presence of someone who made it clear they were uncomfortable. That is not analogous to this situation at all.

Paul did defend his position. I think that we all should. But you don't offend indiscriminately just because you are free to do these things. Paul is instructing us to consider the other person rather than just our own freedom. Chapter 10 spells this out in a practical way. You posted it. You are to refrain from eating for the other person's conscience. Not your own.

Now the case in hand is that a person came saying that he is emboldened to drink alcohol because a fellow Christian with more knowledge than he drinks alcohol. That really seems like 1 Corinthians 8 applies.

No, it doesn't, because the person is free to eat meat, but not eat it if it is made clear that in their presence it would violate their conscience. Again, I am saying that what WorshipJesus has said is that this guy does not want to not have them violate his conscience in his presence, but rather to control their lives when it does not effect him. That is the weak, bullying the strong. To go back to Romans 14, this is precisely what Paul is saying about disputable matters when he talks about accepting them to doubtful disputations.

However, there is another issue that comes to bear here.

This is not a doubtful matter. Meat sacrificed to idols was an issue that an argument could be made either way. Drinking wine not to excess is not a doubtful matter at all. Scripture is explicit that it is fine.

But we apparently disagree on what "despising and condemning and judging" consists of.

Yes. You apparently believe you can despise, (treat someone like an unbeliever, look down on them as a sinner) condemn (judge their actions as sinful before almighty God), and judge them without despising, condemning, or judging. To me it looks like you are saying, nuh-uh, and nothing more. It is very demonstrable that by any normal meaning of the words this guy is doing precisely these things.

I have listed a couple of different examples. And I didn't say "most". I said that there are differences. And there are. Pick one. Address why you don't track them down and confront them about it like you are suggesting someone to do in this case.

I have listed two, the Church of Christ and Pentacostal beliefs. The Church of Christ believes that a woman should have her head covered and that musical instruments should not be used in the Church. They also believe that you aren't saved unless you are Baptized in water. Pentacostals tend to believe that you must speak in tongues if you are saved. If you don't, then you aren't saved.

The issue of music is the best here, and the head coverings. They could be argued for and could be a rabbit trail example of a doubtful area.

These are at best red herrings. the view about water baptism is what saves you is unbiblical and pentacostals who believe tongues are required for salvation are preaching a false gospel of works. Really, I would break fellowship over these things because they change the gospel.

Are you saying that differences don't exist? I have named a couple.

No, but not all differences leave you with Christianity anymore.

Of course they aren't on the same level. Disagreements over salvation would be much worse. And, therefore, much more necessary for you to track them down and confront them about their belief.

And on a very real level, being a weaker brother judging a strong over a non-doubtful matter, (which really Romans 14 and 1 corinthians 8 are being stretched past the breaking point here)

So, in essence, what you are saying is that he is wrong and just won't accept it. You are right, so you can judge all you want. He is wrong and the simple fact that he is wrong means he is sinning and that you should correct him. Until he accepts your belief, he is sinning for simply holding his belief.

No. He is sinning for condemning his brothers in Christ for a "sin" the bible holds as explicitly non-sinful. Judging is an important part of Christianity, but within the confines of scripture. We don't have the latitude to make crap up and hold people to it. Thus the scriptures say, to his own master he stands or falls.

So the guy is wrong. So what? He needs to be taught. You have addressed why he is wrong in his belief that drinking alcohol is a sin. You have not addressed why he is SINNING simply because he disagrees with your assessment of what scripture says.

Yeah, I have if you pay attention. He is wrong, because, in contradiction to the scriptures, he sought out info about his brothers in Christ's liberty, and used it to condemn them and break fellowship. Thats a long way past confusion. It is setting ones self up as their god. It is pride, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. Then again, I already covered that and received no response to that...

try rereading this:
1) According to Jesus, what goes into a man does not make him unclean. (Thus we have denial of Jesus words being required to hold that view.)
2) Jesus acknowledges drinking, so we have to call God incarnate a sinner. (blasphemy)
3) We have to deny the word of God which speaks about the exact issue, which calls drunkenness, but not drinking sins. (numerous places in the epistles can be cited, so we have tacit denial of the word of God and placing our opinions over the word of God.)
4) It is a manmade regulation that comes from a sense of self-righteousness. (pride)

Bill, you don't seem to get it. Romans 14. What is Paul telling the strong Christian to do? Not to despise the weaker brother for holding such a position. Why? Because in abstaining, the weaker brother is doing it toward the Lord. You don't like the fact that the belief that drinking alcohol is sinful means you are sinning when you drink alcohol. However right or wrong that belief is, it is simply a truthful answer if someone asks you and you answer it. It is not the same as despising or judging someone in that way that Paul discusses. Otherwise, Paul would have told that weaker brother that he is not allowed to hold his position that a Christian must observe certain days or abstain from eating meant. You seem to think that it is a sin simply to disagree.. The problem is that if you hold to that position, any disagreement would need confronted until that person agrees with you. You would be attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

I get it. You really don't because of two major reasons.

1) Alcohol consumption in moderation is not a doubtful matter. Scripture addresses it.
2) Scripture gives responsibilities in Romans 14 to the strong and weak brother. It is a two way street. The guy is very clearly in violation of what scripture tells the weaker brother to do.

It isn't as you continually falsely portray someone abstaining that is the issue. I abstain for Pete's sake! The issue is him going to his brother, and calling him a sinner on what scripture calls good. He is judging his brother, which scripture tells him not to. You can disagree on the wisdom of an action or the basis of an action, but to call someone sinful because they do not play by your made up rules is in violation of what Paul tells the weaker brother to do.

Is that not the case? Are you not saying that no one is allowed to disagree with you on what is or is not a sin?

No, but scripture does not allow me the latitude to make up a new rule that wearing green shoes is a sin. I could decree this, and judge you on it if you wore green shoes, but the fact is, I would intrinsically be wrong.

And scripture is plain on this subject.

That is your reading into it. That is not what I read into it. I see a guy who is weakened by a fellow Christian and goes to that person to ask them for help.

If this were the case, he would not have asked. If this were the case, he would not deny the scriptures that show it is okay. If this were true he would not have called his brother's sinful and go to break fellowship with them.

How do you know that he went out and sought the information?

Not to be snarky, but I read the original post.

Originally Posted by original post

A few weeks ago he sat me and two other guys down to talk to us about alcohol. He asked us if we drink alcohol. He reason for asking was because he couldn't be close friends with anyone who drinks alcohol, "even one drop every ten years," because of his past.

Where did he condemn his brother?

Once again, I read the first post. You know, the line highlighted in red.

Originally Posted by original post, the part highlighted in red

One of the last things I asked him was if he thought we were sinning by drinking alcohol, and he responded with a yes.

Why did he choose to cut the brother out of his life?

Its in the post again for crying out loud.

Originally Posted by original post

He reason for asking was because he couldn't be close friends with anyone who drinks alcohol, "even one drop every ten years," because of his past. Specifically because very soon after he got saved he relapsed once and almost died from an overdose (he had been in rehab). He also mentioned he might even have to give up the ministry he is in because of us drinking alcohol. He has already stopped all contact with his own brother because his brother "won't stop befriending the thing that almost killed him." He also said that every drink of alcohol his brother drinks "is an offense to him", but ironically says he won't cut off his girlfriend's brother because it's his girlfriend's brother.

You act as if you know the answer to these without a doubt. I don't think that you do.

Well, they were all spelled out if you bothered to read them.

[WorshipJesus]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't understand this comment in response to that quote.

I would be sinning by enticing him to drink and/or by making him drink because drinking alcohol goes against his conscience.

[tlj009]

But yet his point was detailed. It wasn't that they could bully your freedom either.

No argument here.

However, what you said is that Paul then said eating meat was wrong. That was patently untrue. Paul detiled how and when it was okay to eat meat and it involved anytime except in the presence of someone who made it clear they were uncomfortable. That is not analogous to this situation at all.

So you think that Paul's specified only in the presence of some is it right to abstain. I disagree. Verse 10 seems to imply that if the guy saw you at all, even if you didn't know he was there, the same damage would be done. The knowledge that it happened hurt the guy.

No, it doesn't, because the person is free to eat meat, but not eat it if it is made clear that in their presence it would violate their conscience.

You are adding "in their presence". Instead it should be, you are free to eat meat, unless it harms another.

Again, I am saying that what WorshipJesus has said is that this guy does not want to not have them violate his conscience in his presence, but rather to control their lives when it does not effect him. That is the weak, bullying the strong.

And I asked WorshipJesus this a few times. I kinda got mixed answers. Mainly, I got that he had good motives. He believes that the knowledge of his friends drinking will cause him to relapse. I agree that the motives are what is important here.

To go back to Romans 14, this is precisely what Paul is saying about disputable matters when he talks about accepting them to doubtful disputations.

Paul is saying to not accept their doubtful disputations. I have not seen where the friend has told them to accept his belief. Instead he asked them not to do something. Not to change their belief.

However, there is another issue that comes to bear here.

This is not a doubtful matter. Meat sacrificed to idols was an issue that an argument could be made either way. Drinking wine not to excess is not a doubtful matter at all. Scripture is explicit that it is fine.

It is not doubtful to you. But are you able to read his mind and say that it is not doubtful to him? He believes what he believes. He has his reasons. We don't know them. But then again, no one is saying that we should accept his beliefs. Not even him.

Yes. You apparently believe you can despise, (treat someone like an unbeliever, look down on them as a sinner)

Not being good friends with someone is not the same as treating them as an unbeliever. And we are all sinners so how the heck could we possibly "look down on them as a sinner". I don't look down on a active prostitute or homosexual, because I have my own sins. It is not like I saved myself. I simply don't see how this equates.

condemn (judge their actions as sinful before almighty God)

Condemn means a little more than judging an action as sinful. But I would like to point out that he answered when asked. He did not approach them with condemnation.

and judge them without despising, condemning, or judging.

But yes, I can judge actions as sinful, and conclude that you sin when you do them, without despising or condemning them.

To me it looks like you are saying, nuh-uh, and nothing more. It is very demonstrable that by any normal meaning of the words this guy is doing precisely these things.

But I have made arguments and you have skipped over without addressing them. For example, how is this guy doing those things but the people listed in Romans 14 (the ones abstaining from meats) weren't. I mean, if one of the "strong" Christians had asked them "Is it a sin to eat this meat?" What do you think their answered would be?

The issue of music is the best here, and the head coverings. They could be argued for and could be a rabbit trail example of a doubtful area.

And.....what is your answer to the question? Is your reason for not confronting them simply because of what you identify as "doubtful"?

These are at best red herrings. the view about water baptism is what saves you is unbiblical and pentacostals who believe tongues are required for salvation are preaching a false gospel of works. Really, I would break fellowship over these things because they change the gospel.

So you will condemn Pentecostals and Church of Christ people? Or is it possible that you can not be friends with them without despising or condemning them?

No, but not all differences leave you with Christianity anymore.

I didn't say that they did. I asked if you can disagree without violating Romans 14. You don't seem to think that you can.

And on a very real level, being a weaker brother judging a strong over a non-doubtful matter, (which really Romans 14 and 1 corinthians 8 are being stretched past the breaking point here)

I just don't know what you are saying here.

No. He is sinning for condemning his brothers in Christ for a "sin" the bible holds as explicitly non-sinful. Judging is an important part of Christianity, but within the confines of scripture. We don't have the latitude to make crap up and hold people to it. Thus the scriptures say, to his own master he stands or falls.

How can you say no and then repeat the disagreement? I don't get this.

And I am going to point out, yet again, that he answered when asked. He didn't approach them with a condemnation. Heck, judging an action as sinful is not even condemnation. They mean different things. As for "to his own master he stands or falls", that goes both ways.

Yeah, I have if you pay attention. He is wrong, because, in contradiction to the scriptures, he sought out info about his brothers in Christ's liberty, and used it to condemn them and break fellowship. Thats a long way past confusion. It is setting ones self up as their god. It is pride, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. Then again, I already covered that and received no response to that...

I have disagreed with your assessment several times. You have now jumped from accusing him of despising, judging, and condemning a brother unjustly to accusing him of pride, idolatry, and blasphemy. This speaks more to me about your judgmental attitude than his.

try rereading this:
1) According to Jesus, what goes into a man does not make him unclean. (Thus we have denial of Jesus words being required to hold that view.)
2) Jesus acknowledges drinking, so we have to call God incarnate a sinner. (blasphemy)
3) We have to deny the word of God which speaks about the exact issue, which calls drunkenness, but not drinking sins. (numerous places in the epistles can be cited, so we have tacit denial of the word of God and placing our opinions over the word of God.)
4) It is a manmade regulation that comes from a sense of self-righteousness. (pride)

1) No it wouldn't. It could be ignorance or trusting someone else's words. I don't care if WorshipJesus read the scripture to him. He is not obligated or should he change his mind if 5 minutes. It takes time to really consider an argument.
2) Again, both ignorance and trusting someone else is not uncommon.
3) I am afraid, the same explanation can be used for all of these.
4) Including this one.

So I conclude, that you have accused a guy that you don't know of some very serious sins that you have no way of knowing if he committed. Not excluding the possibility but simply that you don't have any way of knowing and yet you feel comfortable making the accusations.

I get it. You really don't because of two major reasons.

I was referring to you not getting what I have been trying to say. I really do understand what I am saying. Maybe not what you are saying......but anyway.

1) Alcohol consumption in moderation is not a doubtful matter. Scripture addresses it.
2) Scripture gives responsibilities in Romans 14 to the strong and weak brother. It is a two way street. The guy is very clearly in violation of what scripture tells the weaker brother to do.

1) It is not doubtful to you. It is not doubtful to me. I can't speak for other people.
2) Exactly. There are responsibilities to the strong and to the weak. And those responsibilities have to do with attitude. The guy is weak. He thinks drinking alcohol is a sin. And for that opinion. That disagreement. You are judging him as sinful. And you have said that you can't say that someone is sinning without, judging, despising, and condemning them.

It isn't as you continually falsely portray someone abstaining that is the issue.

I never portrayed that at all. I think that the attitudes are the issue.

I abstain for Pete's sake!

Good for you.

The issue is him going to his brother, and calling him a sinner on what scripture calls good.

And WorshipJesus said that he was going to his brother for a different reason. Only when asked did he say that he believed that it was a sin to drink. Is that not relevant at all to you?

He is judging his brother, which scripture tells him not to. You can disagree on the wisdom of an action or the basis of an action, but to call someone sinful because they do not play by your made up rules is in violation of what Paul tells the weaker brother to do.

I have addressed this a dozen times and each time you reword to add something else. For instance, you add "your made up rules". Because he disagrees with you, he has made up some rules. He is wrong. Where do you get that he is someone doing this out of spite or something. That seems to be what you are implying.

No, but scripture does not allow me the latitude to make up a new rule that wearing green shoes is a sin. I could decree this, and judge you on it if you wore green shoes, but the fact is, I would intrinsically be wrong.

And scripture is plain on this subject.

Now you are changing it to where the guy made a complete fabrication of his belief. But why do you say no. Is that to say that people can disagree on what is or is not a sin without despising each other?

If this were the case, he would not have asked.

Asked what? That his friends abstain from drinking? Why not? I mean I don't know all of his reasons to begin with. I certainly wouldn't have asked. But I can think up some possibilities and I have posted some.

If this were the case, he would not deny the scriptures that show it is okay.

He would if he just heard the scriptures 5 minutes ago and didn't have time to really acclimate to the idea, to study about it, and to pray about it.

If this were true he would not have called his brother's sinful and go to break fellowship with them.

Umm.......Do you not understand that he didn't just walk up and tell them how sinful they are and that they are no longer part of his life? You are painting a different picture than what has been presented.

Not to be snarky, but I read the original post.

I read that too. I also read the 5th post.

Posted By WorshipJesus
He had already cut those who drink out of his life (except for his girlfriend's brother), but the reason why he talked to us was because he heard we had drinks on a previous weekend while camping with some other couples.

Once again, I read the first post. You know, the line highlighted in red.

You mean "One of the last things I asked him was if he thought we were sinning by drinking alcohol, and he responded with a yes."
Seems a little to simple of an answer to be labeled as a condemnation.

Its in the post again for crying out loud.

I see. It says that he cuts them out of his life, not because they are sinning, but because of his own past. That is a little different then your accusation.

Well, they were all spelled out if you bothered to read them.

I read everyone. I simply doubt that you had.

[tlj009]

I would be sinning by enticing him to drink and/or by making him drink because drinking alcohol goes against his conscience.

Yeah, I got that. I just don't know how it applies to what you quoted.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

I am not going to bother quoting each subpoint.

I am going to go with just the main points.

1) Drinking alcohol in moderation is not and has not been a disputable matter. It is spelled out rather specifically in the scripture, so treating this as a disputable matter is absurd, though even doing so, the weaker brother here would be out of line.

2) Excommunicating yourself from a brother is the harshest biblical form of condemnation allowed. It is not somehow, sub-judgment, but is rather the end result of church discipline on matters of which the scripture is clear. Judging a brother as sinful is a very serious matter. It isn't some casual, we are all a bunch of sinners here. If we really are the church, no, we are not. We are saints, redeemed by the blood of the lamb and slaves to righteousness.

3) Ignorance is not an excuse to oppose and accuse ones brothers. It really alarms me that you, tlj009 would make a lot of the arguments you are making here.

1) No it wouldn't. It could be ignorance or trusting someone else's words. I don't care if WorshipJesus read the scripture to him. He is not obligated or should he change his mind if 5 minutes. It takes time to really consider an argument.
2) Again, both ignorance and trusting someone else is not uncommon.
3) I am afraid, the same explanation can be used for all of these.

The same explanation you provide is unacceptable. Ignorance is not an excuse and if one is shown in the scriptures something, they have a responsibility to adhere to it, not continue violating it at will. Whether it is common or not is not the issue. The issue is that the attitude and action, while indeed very common are truly manifestations of pride, blasphemy, self righteousness and making ones self god to himself and others.

My answer for not wanting to run down bunny trails is it clutters and derails a thread. Feel free to make a different thread, but this is neither the time nor place to discuss head coverings. However, those that deny salvation by grace through faith alone preach a false gospel abhorrent to Christianity. In answer to your question, I don't despise them, but I do judge them as outside the faith as they add requirements to salvation.

Judging is not unbiblical. Judging a brother on a disputable matter is. And drinking isn't even disputable, without calling Jesus Christ a sinner.

[tlj009]

1) Drinking alcohol in moderation is not and has not been a disputable matter. It is spelled out rather specifically in the scripture, so treating this as a disputable matter is absurd, though even doing so, the weaker brother here would be out of line.

1) It is a disputable matter in many congregations. I myself have heard the arguments on no less than 4 separate occasions. Probably more that I just don't recall. It has been discussed on this site several times with multiple pages. Seems like I can remember at least two occasions. But like I said, as long as he believes it, someone should teach him. And until he comes to the realization, it is a disputable matter in his mind. If not, then there is no hope of him changing his mind.

2) If done for a biblical reason. And excommunication is different than not being friends. For instance, the waving at each other at Church would likely be out. I can decide not to be friends for any number of reasons. The reasons given, in the post that you quoted, were not biblical. They were about his past. His own personal reasons.

3) Oppose? The "accusation" was not an accusation at all. It was a simple yes when asked. Similar to, is it a sin for a woman to pray without their head covered? Yes. Susie prays without her head covered. Is she sinning? Yes. That isn't so much an accusation as it is a statement of opinion.

And I am not here to tell you what you want to hear. If you are alarmed, feel free to PM me.

The same explanation you provide is unacceptable. Ignorance is not an excuse and if one is shown in the scriptures something, they have a responsibility to adhere to it, not continue violating it at will. Whether it is common or not is not the issue. The issue is that the attitude and action, while indeed very common are truly manifestations of pride, blasphemy, self righteousness and making ones self god to himself and others.

If you are shown something in scripture, then you are obligated to consider it, pray about it, and if found correct, then to change your belief. But you are not to change your belief every time someone tells you what to believe.

And ignorance is actually acceptable. For goodness sake, ignorance of sin is acceptable. After all sin is not imputed where there is no law. How much more do you think would ignorance be for something as minor as drinking.

As for blasphemy, self righteousness, and making yourself a god, it seems like you wouldn't be able to accomplish these unless it was intentional.

My answer for not wanting to run down bunny trails is it clutters and derails a thread. Feel free to make a different thread, but this is neither the time nor place to discuss head coverings. However, those that deny salvation by grace through faith alone preach a false gospel abhorrent to Christianity. In answer to your question, I don't despise them, but I do judge them as outside the faith as they add requirements to salvation.

So you have judged those in the Church of Christ, Pentacostals, and I suppose that we can lump Catholics in here for requiring baptism. You judge salvation of those who do confess our Lord Jesus Christ as savior of their lives. I will simply disagree with you.

Judging is not unbiblical. Judging a brother on a disputable matter is. And drinking isn't even disputable, without calling Jesus Christ a sinner.

I agree that judging is not unbiblical. I will have to argue about it later. This is getting far beyond a five minute response.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

1) It is a disputable matter in many congregations. I myself have heard the arguments on no less than 4 separate occasions. Probably more that I just don't recall. It has been discussed on this site several times with multiple pages. Seems like I can remember at least two occasions. But like I said, as long as he believes it, someone should teach him. And until he comes to the realization, it is a disputable matter in his mind. If not, then there is no hope of him changing his mind.

It is not disputed in scripture. I don't care what goes on in numerous congregations.

2) If done for a biblical reason. And excommunication is different than not being friends. For instance, the waving at each other at Church would likely be out. I can decide not to be friends for any number of reasons. The reasons given, in the post that you quoted, were not biblical. They were about his past. His own personal reasons.

the difference is not here. Are you allowed to shun your brothers in Christ? not biblically.

3) Oppose? The "accusation" was not an accusation at all. It was a simple yes when asked. Similar to, is it a sin for a woman to pray without their head covered? Yes. Susie prays without her head covered. Is she sinning? Yes. That isn't so much an accusation as it is a statement of opinion.

It was a statement of opinion about how one views his brother in Christ, unbiblically.

And I am not here to tell you what you want to hear. If you are alarmed, feel free to PM me.

I may.

If you are shown something in scripture, then you are obligated to consider it, pray about it, and if found correct, then to change your belief. But you are not to change your belief every time someone tells you what to believe.

This is wrong. If you are shown scripture that conclusively shows something, you don't have to consider it or pray about whether you are to obey the revealed will of God. Scripture is authoritative.

And ignorance is actually acceptable. For goodness sake, ignorance of sin is acceptable. After all sin is not imputed where there is no law. How much more do you think would ignorance be for something as minor as drinking.

What?!

no scripture I have ever seen asserts this.

As for blasphemy, self righteousness, and making yourself a god, it seems like you wouldn't be able to accomplish these unless it was intentional.

No, one really doesn't need to plan to do so. One can act as if they are God without actually calling it that or realizing their pride inherent in their actions.

So you have judged those in the Church of Christ, Pentacostals, and I suppose that we can lump Catholics in here for requiring baptism. You judge salvation of those who do confess our Lord Jesus Christ as savior of their lives. I will simply disagree with you.

I would not lump all pentacostals, (as you are doing a bait and switch here) or the RCC in this. I will however say that Paul, in Galatians does precisely this calling them damned who encumber the gospel with works. If you condemn myself for holding Christ alone by grace through faith as a limit of the pale of Christianity, than really, you are regarding the enemies of Christ as brothers.Being as Paul does this, I am not afraid to stand by him.

I agree that judging is not unbiblical. I will have to argue about it later. This is getting far beyond a five minute response.

Yes it is, but largely because you are unwilling to concede a couple of things
1) The scriptures are plain on the subject of sin here.
2) Ignorance of the word of God is not a free excuse to reject your brother's in Christ.
3) Sola Christus.
4) Sola Gratia.
5) Sola Fide.

[tlj009]

It is not disputed in scripture. I don't care what goes on in numerous congregations.

So you argument is now going to be that Romans 14 doesn't even apply because you have decided that drinking alcohol is not disputable enough?

the difference is not here. Are you allowed to shun your brothers in Christ? not biblically.

I am free to not be friends with whoever I want. There are a good many that I have a hard time liking.

It was a statement of opinion about how one views his brother in Christ, unbiblically.

And you are making yourself his judge over something that is simply not that important. Romans 14 is about attitudes. Doctrine regarding alcohol is a separate issue that should be addressed. But you want to focus on the fact that you need to correct him.

This is wrong. If you are shown scripture that conclusively shows something, you don't have to consider it or pray about whether you are to obey the revealed will of God. Scripture is authoritative.

You would advise a person to accept anything they are told without checking to see if the scripture has been misused, twisted, etc? Or is it that you would advise accepting what you tell them without question? Questioning things is good and useful. Study is good.

What?!

no scripture I have ever seen asserts this.

A good part of Romans. I believe the verse stating that sin is not imputed where there is no law was in Chapter 5.

No, one really doesn't need to plan to do so. One can act as if they are God without actually calling it that or realizing their pride inherent in their actions.

I'm sorry. I think that it would be kinda hard to blaspheme without knowing that you are blaspheming. Maybe not realize the extent, the consequences, or something but there seems to be a need for intent.

I would not lump all pentacostals, (as you are doing a bait and switch here) or the RCC in this.

Sure, there are some that don't hold to the same beliefs. But I don't really feel like going through each and every one. I will ask anyway. Why not include them and the RCC? Does the RCC not believe that baptism is necessary as a whole?

I will however say that Paul, in Galatians does precisely this calling them damned who encumber the gospel with works.

So your argument again is that you know better than they do. That they really don't have any scripture to back them up. They are just inventing things.....to what purpose I don't know.

If you condemn myself for holding Christ alone by grace through faith as a limit of the pale of Christianity, than really, you are regarding the enemies of Christ as brothers.

I would never presume to condemn you. You profess to be a Christian. I don't have the right to question that.

Yes it is, but largely because you are unwilling to concede a couple of things
1) The scriptures are plain on the subject of sin here.
2) Ignorance of the word of God is not a free excuse to reject your brother's in Christ.
3) Sola Christus.
4) Sola Gratia.
5) Sola Fide.

So now you are accusing me of things that I haven't even argued. You presume too much.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

So you argument is now going to be that Romans 14 doesn't even apply because you have decided that drinking alcohol is not disputable enough?

Well, biblically, it isn't.

I am free to not be friends with whoever I want. There are a good many that I have a hard time liking.

Is that a biblical option? I don't think so.

And you are making yourself his judge over something that is simply not that important. Romans 14 is about attitudes. Doctrine regarding alcohol is a separate issue that should be addressed. But you want to focus on the fact that you need to correct him.

No, I am not. I am focusing on his attack being wrong.

You would advise a person to accept anything they are told without checking to see if the scripture has been misused, twisted, etc? Or is it that you would advise accepting what you tell them without question? Questioning things is good and useful. Study is good.

Study is good, but there are enough on this one where such things as Jesus rebuttal against getting called a drunk is pretty easy.

A good part of Romans. I believe the verse stating that sin is not imputed where there is no law was in Chapter 5.

Thats a twist, since scripture says those without law are judged by the law that is written in their hearts.

I'm sorry. I think that it would be kinda hard to blaspheme without knowing that you are blaspheming. Maybe not realize the extent, the consequences, or something but there seems to be a need for intent.

Really? If I decide I know better than scripture about sex, isn't that disregard placing ones self above God? I might only think about the sex, but in reality, I am deciding I am over God. I bring that up because I see it a lot.

Sure, there are some that don't hold to the same beliefs. But I don't really feel like going through each and every one. I will ask anyway. Why not include them and the RCC? Does the RCC not believe that baptism is necessary as a whole?

Varies.

So your argument again is that you know better than they do. That they really don't have any scripture to back them up. They are just inventing things.....to what purpose I don't know.

No, my argument is the scripture is clear. And that it should be followed.

I would never presume to condemn you. You profess to be a Christian. I don't have the right to question that.

You would, if I started preaching salvation by works.

So now you are accusing me of things that I haven't even argued. You presume too much.

I presumed nothing here. You claimed those were not necessary to viewing someone as a brother.

[tlj009]

Well, biblically, it isn't.

According to you. Paul didn't seem to think that there was any question about observing days or eating meat, but he still wrote Romans 14 addressing those issues.

Is that a biblical option? I don't think so.

You are going to have to show that to me.

No, I am not. I am focusing on his attack being wrong.

Except that he didn't attack. You just don't like what his answer was when he was asked to give it.

Study is good, but there are enough on this one where such things as Jesus rebuttal against getting called a drunk is pretty easy.

Doesn't mean that it should be taken for granted without a thorough study. And easy for you is not necessarily easy for everyone. Someone who is taught a particular thing his whole life by everyone he respects would be foolish to through it away in five minutes without studying himself.

Thats a twist, since scripture says those without law are judged by the law that is written in their hearts.

And that doesn't contradict anything that I said. They have a law. The law is violated in order for sin to be imputed. Where there is no law, there is ignorance of sin, and sin is not imputed. It is why Paul said that he was alive once without the law but when the law came, sin revived and slew him.

Really? If I decide I know better than scripture about sex, isn't that disregard placing ones self above God? I might only think about the sex, but in reality, I am deciding I am over God. I bring that up because I see it a lot.

Not if there is a disconnect. You are putting yourself above scripture. But there is a necessity to understand that this is what the Lord God says in order for you to place yourself above God. So yeah, you are wrong for opposing scripture, but placing yourself above God is a different issue that may or may not be related.

Varies.

And doesn't answer the question. But what gives you the right to judge someone and condemn them to hell? You are judging someone's soul. Someone who profess Christ as Savior and Lord of their lives. For what? Because they have been taught all of their lives and believe that baptism is necessary for salvation or that if you don't speak in tongues then you aren't really saved? That is rather presumptuous. I know of no scripture anywhere that gives us the right to judge a persons salvation like that.

No, my argument is the scripture is clear. And that it should be followed.

I am sure that it is clear to them too.

You would, if I started preaching salvation by works.

No. I could judge your teaching. I could remove you from the congregation. I could judge your actions as being wrong. But you salvation is between you and God.

I presumed nothing here. You claimed those were not necessary to viewing someone as a brother.

I know of one thing required for salvation. That is accepting our Lord Jesus Christ as Savior of our lives. That involves a whole lot. But it does not necessitate that the person have a full understanding of what the purpose of Baptism is. It does not necessitate that the person fully understand the purpose of speaking in tongues. Christ is the one that performs the work. Acceptance is all that is necessary.

[WorshipJesus]

So I ended up talking with my pastor. His advice was to wait 3-6 months from that first meeting, keep our word not to drink, then when the time is right take him aside and talk with him about what's going on.

My pastor said he needs to know what the Bible says on the matter for a couple of reasons:

1. He set a higher standard than what God requires of us when it comes to not stumbling a brother.
2. He gave us an ultimatum that was neither biblical or reasonable (if he asked differently, it probably would have been a better situation).
3. He presented this ultimatum in (ignorant) manipulation/guilt trip.

My friend is just very immature in his faith and lacks the knowledge that he has access to the power of the Holy Spirit to say no to sin in his life. By us waiting a few months in honoring his request we can hopefully gain his respect and in return gain his respect and honor so that he might hear what we have to say. My pastor also said if the conversation is still cool enough to maybe bring up the passage 1 Timothy 4:1-5:

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Our prayer is that in the next few months he will have grown to a point that he can take what we have to say and change his views to what the Bible says is right and not heed to his own logic (not saying that he should abandon his conscience for then we would be in the wrong). If he listens to us, great! If he doesn't, we have done all we can to educate him in what the Bible says on the issue and it will be on him if he pushes it aside.

[tlj009]

So I ended up talking with my pastor. His advice was to wait 3-6 months from that first meeting, keep our word not to drink, then when the time is right take him aside and talk with him about what's going on.

I think that is probably for the best. The difficult part will be keeping the conversation calm. Patience will likely be a necessity.