Can someone educate me?

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Good question. What would be the basis for making definitive statements about the way that church members should conduct themselves regarding
(1) health,
(2) diet,
(3) amusement,
(4) entertainment,
(5) dress,
(6) alcohol or
(7) tobacco?

Ultimately the basis should be in Scripture. Regarding the specifics topic you asked:

Health: The Bible does not teach that our bodies are our own to do as we please with. I believe that the Sixth Commandment's prohibition against murder also covers self-murder through unhealthy lifestyles. Scientific information about what practice are best for our health changes with the times, but there are time-tested common sense principles that the church would do well to encourage.

Diet: What I said above applies. In addition, in Scripture God lists certain animals that He did not intend for human consumption. Also, live yeast and baking soda should not be consumed during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Amusement and Entertainment: Usually the Christian's own conscience can determine whether entertainment is having a positive or negative effect spiritually. Simply put, do think it encourages you to think, talk or act in ways that a Christian should? Inevitably, there will be "gray areas" that some Christians will find acceptable and others not, but Christians need to be able to use their own judgment if they are to spiritually mature.

Dress: When you worship God, wear your best, otherwise what are your best clothes for? Otherwise dress should be a manner that inspires confidence without feeding vanity. Revealing attire that could easily provoke others to lust should not be worn.

Alcohol: The Scriptures plainly sanctions the consumption of alcoholic beverages in moderation, and it would not have done so if it were harmful to our bodies. On the other hand, the Bible warns against excessive drinking and condemns drunkenness.

Tobacco: Fits under the common sense principle with regard to health. Common sense says that God did not design the lungs for the purpose of inhaling smoke.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I believe that the Sixth Commandment's prohibition against murder also covers self-murder through unhealthy lifestyles.

Should a church define for its members the things that are healthy and unhealthy?

In addition, in Scripture God lists certain animals that He did not intend for human consumption.

Does Mark 7:17-19 apply?

Usually the Christian's own conscience can determine whether entertainment is having a positive or negative effect spiritually.

I agree, and conclude that a church should not be the conscience of its members on such issues.

Simply put, do think it encourages you to think, talk or act in ways that a Christian should?

How should a Christian act? If a person plays competitive sports, does this make him more or less a Christian? If a person goes to a movie theater, does this make him more or less a Christian? If a person dines in a restaurant that serves alcohol, does this make him more or less a Christian?

Dress: When you worship God, wear your best, otherwise what are your best clothes for?

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

Otherwise dress should be a manner that inspires confidence without feeding vanity. Revealing attire that could easily provoke others to lust should not be worn.

Who defines how much is too much? Does a church define this for its members, or does each individual member rely on the Holy Spirit for conviction?

Alcohol: The Scriptures plainly sanctions the consumption of alcoholic beverages in moderation, and it would not have done so if it were harmful to our bodies. On the other hand, the Bible warns against excessive drinking and condemns drunkenness.

I agree completely. It is for this reason that I wonder about the inclusion the word "alcohol" in this fundamental belief.

Tobacco: Fits under the common sense principle with regard to health.

Should our common sense come from the church we attend or from the Spirit who convicts?

Common sense says that God did not design the lungs for the purpose of inhailing smoke.

Although I certainly agree with you, I think a church can have faith that the Spirit will convict its members on such matters.

BFA

 

[AzA]

Is it possible that such statements lead to increased judgment and/or bickering among the membership? If so, could such behavior lead to a decreased focus on other topics such as the gospel, the great commission and/or the greatest commandment?

It's certainly possible; it's just as possible for groups to use them in other ways. In other words, no outcome is automatic.
The rules that groups develop, the way they articulate them, and the way they police them (or not) tends to flow from the group's sense of its identity and its consequent "personality."

I'd say, over the years, the Catholic church has poured more energy than most groups into articulating and regulating standards for its members, and for members-in-potential (ie. everybody else, lol!). And it hasn't foregone proselytizing or service or engagement in some form even so. I would say that all follows from how the church has perceived itself and its role in society and history.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Should a church define for its members the things that are healthy and unhealthy?

Only according to the Scriptures. Other principles for good health that are based common sense, the church should reinforce.

Does Mark 7:17-19 apply?

"And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Mark 7:17-19

Look at the context in verses 1-5:

"Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Mark 7:1-5

You can see that Jesus was talking about a ritual hand washing that was traditionally practiced by the Jews, not clean and unclean meats at all. So the answer to your question would be No.

I agree, and conclude that a church should not be the conscience of its members on such issues.

In most cases, I would agree. Notice, though, I did use the word "usually". Sometimes Christians don't listen to their conscience. Sometimes, after continually not listening to their conscience, their conscience becomes numb.

How should a Christian act? If a person plays competitive sports, does this make him more or less a Christian? If a person goes to a movie theater, does this make him more or less a Christian? If a person dines in a restaurant that serves alcohol, does this make him more or less a Christian?

I don't like the way that question is framed. Being "more or less of a Christian" really isn't the point here. If instead of asking "does this make him more or less of a Christian?" you had asked "does this make his conduct more or less becoming that of a Christian?", my answers to your questions would have been no, depends on the movie he sees, and no.

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

When I go to a job interview, I dress for the occasion. When I go to a relatives wedding, I dress for the occasion. When I take my girlfriend out for the evening, I dress for the occasion. How I dress says a lot about my attitude toward what I am doing and my respect for person on behalf of who I am doing it for. Casual dress at church reflects a casual attitude toward worshiping God.

Who defines how much is too much? Does a church define this for its members, or does each individual member rely on the Holy Spirit for conviction?

As with entertainment, within broad parameters the individual member should be encouraged to follow his own conscience, as vanity cannot easily be discerned externally. However, what a manner of dress suggests in the popular culture should be taken into consideration, and as I said revealing attire is another matter entirely, owing to what attitudes it could foster in others.

I agree completely. It is for this reason that I wonder about the inclusion the word "alcohol" in this fundamental belief.

To put it bluntly, because the SDA church chooses to believe EGW over the Bible. From what I understand the church used to include "caffeine" as well. At least then they could be commended for their consistency.

Should our common sense come from the church we attend or from the Spirit who convicts?

Common sense is a natural gift that God bestowed on all human beings. I don't see any reason why both the church and the Spirit couldn't play a role in reinforcing it.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Other principles for good health that are based common sense, the church should reinforce.

On whose authority?

Look at the context in verses 1-5:

I love looking at context. Thanks for that. Now let's consider the context in a couple more translations:

NASB: "After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man."

ESV: "And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him." And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him."
​

Please speak directly to the bolded section.

You can see that Jesus was talking about a ritual hand washing that was traditionally practiced by the Jews, not clean and unclean meats at all.

Indeed, in addition to other topics, he did address ritual hand washing. A careful consideration of the context reveals that he also addressed clean and unclean meats.

Sometimes Christians don't listen to their conscience. Sometimes, after continually not listening to their conscience, their conscience becomes numb.

Will such persons be held by a denomination that uscerps the role of the Spirit?

I don't like the way that question is framed. Being "more or less of a Christian" really isn't the point here. If instead of asking "does this make him more or less of a Christian?" you had asked "does this make his conduct more or less becoming that of a Christian?", my answers to your questions would have been no, depends on the movie he sees, and no.

The point is that a denomination should not prescribe acceptable Christian decorum in areas where the Scriptures are silent.

When I go to a job interview, I dress for the occasion.

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

When I go to a relatives wedding, I dress for the occasion.

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

When I take my girlfriend out for the evening, I dress for the occasion.

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

How I dress says a lot about my attitude toward what I am doing and my respect for person on behalf of who I am doing it for.

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

Casual dress at church reflects a casual attitude toward worshiping God.

Says who?

As with entertainment, within broad parameters the individual member should be encouraged to follow his own conscience, as vanity cannot easily be discerned externally. However, what a manner of dress suggests in the popular culture should be taken into consideration, and as I said revealing attire is another matter entirely, owing to what attitudes it could foster in others.

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

To put it bluntly, because the SDA church chooses to believe EGW over the Bible.

Agreed.

From what I understand the church used to include "caffeine" as well.

Indeed. Perhaps not in the statement of fundamental beliefs, but in the baptismal vows.

Common sense is a natural gift that God bestowed on all human beings.

Through whom?

I don't see any reason why both the church and the Spirit couldn't play a role in reinforcing it.

What is the downside when the church begins to do the Spirit's job?

BFA

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

On whose authority?

On the authority of reason.

Please speak directly to the bolded section.

The bolded section, as you will note, is a parenthetical remark, and as such, it is an interpretation of Jesus' words. I consider it a faulty interpretation, not supported by the context.

Indeed, in addition to other topics, he did address ritual hand washing. A careful consideration of the context reveals that he also addressed clean and unclean meats.

He says how the the Pharisees had disregarded the Law in favor of human tradition. The commandments regarding clean and unclean meats are not human traditions. As an example, he notes how they allow men to put aside the Fifth Commandment for the support of their own ministry. He says that the sinful thoughts, words, and actions that originate in men's hearts make them unclean, not eating with unwashed hands. Nowhere, however, does he address clean and unclean meats. This is why the King James Version in this case fits the context better then the translations you cited.

Will such persons be held by a denomination that uscerps the role of the Spirit?

What do you mean by "held by"?

The point is that a denomination should not prescribe acceptable Christian decorum in areas where the Scriptures are silent.

So those were just rhetorical questions?

Is this a divine mandate or a personal preference?

You could call it a personal preference, but it's not my own personal preference.

Says who?

My, I sense some hostility there. What else could it reflect? If the small effort required to look nice for service simply isn't worth the effort, what kind of attitude toward worshiping God does that reflect? If there are other things in life that are worth the effort, what does that say about someone's priorities in life?

Through whom?

Through nobody.

What is the downside when the church begins to do the Spirit's job?

Does the Spirit ever use the church to accomplish its purpose?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

On the authority of reason.

Are you suggesting that human reason is the basis by which church-endorsed standards are adopted?

He says how the the Pharisees had disregarded the Law in favor of human tradition.

Which is what I see happening fundamental belief #22. The standards cited (i.e. amusement, entertainment, dress, alcohol, tobacco) have their basis in tradition and not in a divine mandate.

You could call it a personal preference, but it's not my own personal preference.

Then what is the basis for deciding what is appropriate with respect to amusement, entertainment, dress, alcohol and tobacco?

If the small effort required to look nice for service simply isn't worth the effort, what kind of attitude toward worshiping God does that reflect?

Who gets to define "nice?" Upon whose authority?

Does the Spirit ever use the church to accomplish its purpose?

In setting standards of behavior? I've yet to see a precedent for that.

BFA

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by Byfaithalone1

Good question. What would be the basis for making definitive statements about the way that church members should conduct themselves regarding
(1) health,
(2) diet,
(3) amusement,
(4) entertainment,
(5) dress,
(6) alcohol or
(7) tobacco?​

Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost. You were bought and paid for with a very high price. You owe Him your best. You volunteered to join the church--it didn't drag you in and say "Now you are one of us and you must obey." You can leave any time you want.
​

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost.

With opinions changing daily as to which foods and practices are healthy/unhealthy, would you conclude that a denomination has the authority to erect standards on subjects not specifically addressed in Scripture?

You were bought and paid for with a very high price. You owe Him your best.

I certainly do not owe a denomination any explanation regarding lifestyle choices on matters not addressed in Scripture.

You volunteered to join the church

The question is whether God has granted a denomination the authority to legislate behaviors not addressed in Scripture. Care to address that question?

BFA

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Are you suggesting that human reason is the basis by which church-endorsed standards are adopted?

I am suggesting that it should be.

With opinions changing daily as to which foods and practices are healthy/unhealthy, would you conclude that a denomination has the authority to erect standards on subjects not specifically addressed in Scripture?

Medical opinion is constantly changing, and of course that needs to be taken into account. There are, however common sense principle that have stood the test of time, adequate rest and exercise, avoiding tobacco being a few examples, and yes the church does have the authority to erect standards regarding that.

Which is what I see happening fundamental belief #22. The standards cited (i.e. amusement, entertainment, dress, alcohol, tobacco) have their basis in tradition and not in a divine mandate.

FB #22 is not specific about what types of entertainment or dress are deemed appropriate, so there is considerable leeway as to how that fundamental is interpreted.

Then what is the basis for deciding what is appropriate with respect to amusement, entertainment, dress, alcohol and tobacco?

I've already explained as clearly as I can regarding alcohol and tobacco. Regarding entertainment and dress, I reiterate that, within broad parameters, that is best left to personal conscience. One of the sharper differences between SDA and WCG was that the WCG was never opposed to drinking, dancing, card playing, movie going, secular music and many of the things that the SDA's and many other fundamentalist churches condemned.

Who gets to define "nice?" Upon whose authority?

I feel like I'm talking to child here. The culture in which we live defines "nice".

In setting standards of behavior? I've yet to see a precedent for that.

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to instruct the church in Corinth to set standards for behavior.

The question is whether God has granted a denomination the authority to legislate behaviors not addressed in Scripture. Care to address that question?

My answer would be yes, provided that first, they do not command what Scripture forbids, or forbid what Scripture commands, and second, that they do not confuse their legislation with God's. Whether it is pastorally wise to do so is, of course, another matter.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

SOLDIER: I am suggesting that it should be.

Is this your opinion or God's? I am interested in understanding when (or if) God ever granted to a denomination the authority to act as the conscience of its membership on matters not addressed in Scripture.

BFA

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The church cannot act as the conscience of its membership on anything. For anybody whose conscience will not permit them to follow the teachings of the church at which they attend, the honest thing to do is to leave. What point would there be in staying?

 

[djconklin]

I am interested in understanding when (or if) God ever granted to a denomination the authority to act as the conscience of its membership on matters not addressed in Scripture.

Which denomination does that?

What does the Bible say about coke, horse, meth, marijuana, smoking, loaning money to strangers, taking unnecessary risks and the use of hard liquor?