*takes out copy of 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith*
In Section 19, that clarifies where my Bible Church stands on the Mosaic Law. It divides the Law into three sections. The ceremonial law, aka the sacrificing of sheep and goats, was fulfilled by Christ’s perfect sacrifice on the cross, and was abolished by the rending of the veil at Christ’s death. The second part of the law is the civil law, the law about how the nation of Israel should conduct itself. This law mandates the execution of homosexuals and adulterous women, and which no Christian denomination follows today. This law was abolished when the nation of Israel ceased to be a nation, about 70 A.D.
The third part of the Law is God’s moral law, the law whereby we become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20) that no human beings measure up to. This was included through the Law of Moses in the Decalogue and the laws about idols and sexual immorality.
The Decalogue was the basis of many of the commands and teachings of Jesus. Christians are obligated to follow the commands and teachings of Jesus. In so far as there is a teaching of Christ that comes from the Decalogue, Christians follow it, and when there is no teaching of Christ, or Christ says something that pushes against the Decalogue, as in the case of the Sabbath debates, Gentile believers in Christ follow Christ. We are Christians and we follow Jesus. In affirming, extending and upgrading, the Decalogue’s commands (Matthew 5:21-48; Mark 12:28-34), Christ fulfilled the Decalogue, and showed himself consistent with it.
Therefore, Christians follow the teachings of Christ, and the essentials given here:
The teachings of Christ define Christian morality. Sin and the moral law of God has not changed from Moses to Jesus, it just has been more fully explained. God’s righteous standard has not changed.
Basically, I think we agree.
The caution I would give is that the instructions in Paul’s Epistles are guidelines as to how churches should be run, not instructions on which to condemn people of sin. Christ and God are the authority on morality, and Paul’s epistles are arguments are about how to live for Christ in a culture obsessed with excellence in all things (Greek culture) without falling back into the Mosaic law code. I do think that all Christians should pursue sanctification by following the instructions, as not doing so can harm your fellow believer and is absolutely infuriating, but accusing a fellow believer of sin based on not following Paul’s instructions may be out of order.
Otherwise, we subject Paul to the irony of saying that we are not under law but under grace, while he prescribes yet another law. Paul doesn’t claim that his instructions are a moral authority; when asked to defend them, he defers to his intelligence and authority as an Apostle. In short, he has been given revelation from God and inspiration from the Holy Spirit which we should defer to in how we run the church as an institution.
Why is this question being asked in front of everyone?
Engaging in intellectual arguments to defend what we believe to be true is not a moral virtue, and failing to engage is not a sin. In fact, there are Scriptures that the state the opposite is true.
Sometimes we need to be patient, to wait for the sands of time to turn so that others may see and experience our perspective, rather than throwing the truth they will not accept in their faces until they submit.
There are numerous Scriptures against quarreling and gossip and slander against fellow believers as well. Here’s just one of them:
Therefore, refraining from a quarrel or argument is not a sin. The opposite is true. To suggest that one is sinning by avoiding an argument is to slander one’s fellow believer. (Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 4:31, Titus 3:2 )
Where is the love in this first sentence? I think you are thinking of Ephesians 4:
I don’t think accusing one’s brother of sin publicly in front of others is very loving. Nor is subjecting one’s brother or sister in Christ to needless criticism and arguments. We are called to love each other, not quarrel with each other.
As for being our brother’s keeper, that’s Cain’s lame excuse to try and get out of punishment for murder in Genesis 4, that he wasn’t his brother’s keeper. That’s not the basis for doctrine, unless we’re talking about the instructions in the Decalogue or Matthew 5 not to murder. Cain didn’t have an obligation to argue with God, in fact, he should have repented of his sin. There are clear instructions as to how the church authority is supposed to be laid out in the Epistles and there will be no awards given for stubbornly defending your personal opinion at other people’s expense, like Cain did.
I’d like to hear it. What Scripture do you have to defend your actions?
Because these posts are not only telling me that criticism of my fellow believer is a moral virtue, but that I am obliged to do so to avoid sinning. That’s not anywhere close to Ephesians 4:32.
Because, obviously, I hate criticism, especially personal criticism directed at me. It fills me with a heart of rage. Some of it is legitimate, I’ve discovered of the years. I’m fallen, I’m not perfect, and I appreciate it when people tell me the truth. When they have the courage to tell the truth, it helps me. FINE. But there’s always a fine. There’s always the anger rushing out of the fallen machine as the gears have to stop for yet another round of infuriating maintenance. And then there’s the unjust criticism, the insults. I’ve been kicked around one too many times. The temptation for revenge is ever at hand, the “You don’t mess with me!” voice shrieking its protest out of the dark void of my unconscious. Sometimes I don’t even know whether the criticism is untrue or not, and have to wait for God to show me more.
The idea that someone would think they have a moral obligation to put others through this agony, unless they have a good reason, strikes me as reprehensible. The opposite idea is a thing of horror, we should not feel like we have to tiptoe around each other’s feelings, no to that. But sometimes, no amount of criticism of ours will produce a change in behavior, and we have to let someone else run off a cliff so they see why that is a bad idea. In other cases, criticism and correction has been delegated to an authority, and we would be wise to defer to them, to allow the authority to engage in discipline, rather than taking matters into our own hands. Other times it is not a fault, but simply a difference in opinion. It it wise to learn to understand these things. Personal criticism is a weapon of last resort, rather than the first we reach for. To do otherwise is to enable the flesh.
Criticism is just the anger of man at another man. It is not a moral virtue.
I maintain that James 5:19-20 does not negate James 1:19-20.
I maintain that Jude 1:17-23 does not negate Matthew 18:15-18.
No human being has a moral obligation to criticize another human being.
www.yahoo.com
