How would you argue for sin not written in scripture?

MasterYourLife said:

I agree, but a lot of these issues are subjective among Christians. How would you teach someone the core nature of these sins.

Click to expand...

As I's said from the 10C and Jesus's teaching in the sermon on the mount.

MasterYourLife said:

For example, inappropriate behavior with animals is not explicitly mentioned in the new testament. Aside from categorizing it in "fornication" and "sexual immorality", how would you argue it's a sin?

Injecting heroin. Aside from "it hurts the temple of God" and "drunkenness", how would you explain that it's a sin under God.

Pedophilia. Not mentioned explicitly at all in the entire Bible. How would you explain it's a sin?

These are just examples, and there are many instances where sin is not explicitly mentioned.
So how do we argue what is sin, when we judge by our moral heart?

This is an important question, because it creates a loophole, even for Christians, to slowly draft sin into their lives.
Where for example, Halloween was commonly accepted as evil -- today many Christians celebrate.
Where watching violence, nudity, and coarse language, was unspeakable among Christians -- today many Christians defend being entertained by sin.
"All unrighteousness is sin", so why do Christians disagree on what's righteous.

Click to expand...

Galatians 5:16

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

1 Peter 2:11

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.

Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are evident (clearly seen and understood): sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 7:9

But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

For example, inappropriate behavior with animals is not explicitly mentioned in the new testament.

Click to expand...

"

The new testament does not do away with the old testament. Jesus taught from the old testament ... though man divides it that way, along with breaking it down in numbered chapters/verses for easier reading and referencing ... the bible is one big book.

As far as Jesus' teachings ... He did not change anything regarding His moral laws or what was prophesied in the OT ... what He did was provide additional details ... information/clarity for our understanding ... about the depth of the moral law and what righteousness is (what is morally right).

Jesus IS God ... and never changes.

Malachi 3:6

6“Because I, the LORD, do not change, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed.

Colossians 2:9

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

1 John 5:20

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Matthew 4:4

But he answered, “It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

MasterYourLife said:

Although I agree, there are some who will argue it as a matter of interpretation, or simply not a law, because it's not written explicitly like, "11th commandment, do not commit pedophilia".
How would you argue with someone with that kind of thinking?

Click to expand...

I would probably say. "You are an idiot." but here's the thing, if people don't want to hear truth they're not going to listen. They're going to argue no matter how clear it is.

one has to determine if the action violates biblical principles.

illegal downloading is not mentioned in scripture but it sin as it is a form of stealing.

MasterYourLife said:

For example, inappropriate behavior with animals is not explicitly mentioned in the new testament. Aside from categorizing it in "fornication" and "sexual immorality", how would you argue it's a sin?

Injecting heroin. Aside from "it hurts the temple of God" and "drunkenness", how would you explain that it's a sin under God.

Pedophilia. Not mentioned explicitly at all in the entire Bible. How would you explain it's a sin?

These are just examples, and there are many instances where sin is not explicitly mentioned.
So how do we argue what is sin, when we judge by our moral heart?

This is an important question, because it creates a loophole, even for Christians, to slowly draft sin into their lives.
Where for example, Halloween was commonly accepted as evil -- today many Christians celebrate.
Where watching violence, nudity, and coarse language, was unspeakable among Christians -- today many Christians defend being entertained by sin.
"All unrighteousness is sin", so why do Christians disagree on what's righteous.

Click to expand...

I think there is some relation to understanding proper human functioning. We are designed to function certain ways - biologically, mentally, socially, etc... I think one of the realities of sin is that it somehow interferes with, distorts, changes, our proper functioning. Take sin to some threshold degree and it results in death and destruction.

So when specific activity isn't mentioned in the Bible, I think a general question could be asked and general principles applied. Does this activity further promote life or does it degrade life? Would doing this activity promote the good or would it promote more of the bad? So for example, shooting up heroin, as you mentioned, isn't mentioned in the bible, but it clearly furthers all sorts of bad things that interfere with our proper functioning. Carry it to an extreme over some time period and it will destroy a person.

When Paul says the wages of sin is death, I think there is an applicability beyond the fact that we all die. Yes we all die, but generally sin also leads to a shorter life and probably a worse life. I think anytime you interfere with or distort our proper functioning there are consequences to be paid, however small or large they may be. Sin corrupts us in various ways as it interferes with our proper functioning, even if the ways it corrupts are sometimes imperceptible or immeasurable.

There is no sin not written in scripture. Sin right from the beginning is putting one's own will ahead of the will of God. Serving self in this way is behind all so called sins man comes up with. Jesus' suggestion we love all as self is a counter-measure. Few listen or care.

MasterYourLife said:

Although I agree, there are some who will argue it as a matter of interpretation, or simply not a law, because it's not written explicitly like, "11th commandment, do not commit pedophilia".
How would you argue with someone with that kind of thinking?

Click to expand...

This is why I believe using the OT laws when appropriate it can help us to make informed discussions. On the concept of pedophilia I would say Romans 1 indirectly speaks to this because it’s an unnatural affection.

Christ is Lord said:

On the concept of pedophilia I would say Romans 1 indirectly speaks to this because it’s anmunnatural affection.

Click to expand...

How about would you want those things done to yourself as a kid or to your own kids. Treat neighbour as self.

MasterYourLife said:

For example, inappropriate behavior with animals is not explicitly mentioned in the new testament. Aside from categorizing it in "fornication" and "sexual immorality", how would you argue it's a sin?

Click to expand...

If we are talking about pre-faith then it doesn't really matter what people call wrong and what they call right as their moral and ethical law is not from God. If scripture is not an authority for the person then it won't really matter how explicitly it's stated it won't be accepted. Our job is to preach, show, reveal the gospel and introduce them to Christ, he will do our heavy lifting for us.

Once they accept scripture as an authority and are following christ you probably won't need to tell them having sex with their dog is wrong as the spirit will have already done this for you. But if the point is brought up I don't see it wrong to use OT along with the design of God in marriage to show what God desires and what he doesn't. The OT points to Christ and it can be used to show morality.

MasterYourLife said:

For example, inappropriate behavior with animals is not explicitly mentioned in the new testament.

Click to expand...

This is a part of the law. This is why Jesus was nailed to the cross so law could be forfilled. "Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death." (Ex22:19)

The Jewish people add to the laws of Moses. This is a subject of discussion and debate. They want to go above and beyond the law so they can be sure that God will be happy with them. So they do not take any chances of falling short. Jesus was against people taking on this added burden.

Injecting heroin.

Click to expand...

Revelation 21:8
But to the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."

The word "sorcerers" in Greek is: pharmakois. This is the word we get the modern word Pharmacy from. We read in Proverbs 31:6: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts". God does have mercy on even sinners when they are in excessive pain. So he does comfort them. Heroin is given to people that are perishing or dieing from Cancer or something like that to make it easier for them. If people are going to recover then they should not be given Heroin. They may have some brief pain for a day or two but the Hormones (oxyticin) will kick in to heal them. If you give them Heroin that prevents the body from healing itself. Sometimes people end up with a lifetime of misery because they want to avoid a few days of discomfort.

because it creates a loophole, even for Christians

Click to expand...

Not Christians that take their Priesthood serious and they want to serve God. We are called to be Holy and Sanctified. If we do not take that serious we can still be saved even if we suffer loss. But we can not be used by God for ministry because in order for God to use us we have to be setting a right example for others. If we teach others to sin then we are the least in the Kingdom of God. But if we keep the righteous requirements of the law and teach others the same then we are considered to be great in the Kingdom to the degree that we live a life that is well pleasing to God. The Mormons take this very serious. Some even go beyond the Priesthood of Aaron to be a part of the Melchizedek Priesthood. We read about when Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek the King of Salam. That became the city of Jerusalem.

DamianWarS said:

If scripture is not an authority for the person then it won't really matter how explicitly it's stated it won't be accepted.

Click to expand...

Man has always had the peculiar nature of self justification. It comes from the knowledge of good and evil, where the definition of each is constantly redefined in order to self justify the deed.

joshua 1 9 said:

"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts". God does have mercy on even sinners when they are in excessive pain. So he does comfort them. Heroin is given to people that are perishing or dieing from Cancer or something like that to make it easier for them. If people are going to recover then they should not be given Heroin. They may have some brief pain for a day or two but the Hormones (oxyticin) will kick in to heal them. If you give them Heroin that prevents the body from healing itself. Sometimes people end up with a lifetime of misery because they want to avoid a few days of discomfort.

Click to expand...

I’m assuming you wouldn’t take anastasia if you ever had a painful surgery?

mothcorrupteth said:

Well, I never claimed that.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not, and if you are not sympathetic to the POV, I'm relieved. I was describing the standard approach that dozens of RCs and EOs here have argued for on many occasions.

But you're not understanding my counterpoint to it. The task in Protestantism is for everybody in the pews to be theological guru, whether that means reading Scripture or John Wesley.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. I would point out that nothing about Sola Scriptura makes the individual a theological guru nor is that expected of members of those churches. Rather, the point is that Scripture IS the authority, not something else. It does not include any claim about the ability of every church member to get an interpretation of that authority's information correct.

But then you go on to mention Wesley, so you seem to me to be acknowledging my point without realizing it. If the individual is to turn to someone who IS a theologian in order to better understand Scripture, the situation is no different from what RCs and EOs do when they take it from their leaders what it is they are supposed to believe Tradition is testifying to!

The task in Orthodoxy is for everybody to be a saint, and that usually means having complex ideas about moral conduct simplified for ordinary people through homilies and stories of the lives of the saints. You're basically saying, "Your solution to the problem is not a viable one," and I'm saying, "Why is it a problem?"

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that what you are explaining is no different from what Protestants do...but you have criticized them for it while talking as though the same process is perfectly logical when done by an Orthodox Christian.

Christ is Lord said:

I’m assuming you wouldn’t take anastasia if you ever had a painful surgery?

Click to expand...

Woosh, the whole thing went right over your head. My father was a doctor for over 50 years. I know the difference between drug use and drug abuse. Most everyone use to know the difference but that is not so clear now a days. We have to many doctors prescribing drugs in a way that most doctors before would never have prescribed them.

joshua 1 9 said:

Woosh, the whole thing went right over your head. My father was a doctor for over 50 years. I know the difference between drug use and drug abuse. Most everyone use to know the difference but that is not so clear now a days. We have to many doctors prescribing drugs in a way that most doctors before would never have prescribed them.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry. I thought you were advocating not using them in instances like that.

MasterYourLife said:

For example, inappropriate behavior with animals is not explicitly mentioned in the new testament. Aside from categorizing it in "fornication" and "sexual immorality", how would you argue it's a sin?

Click to expand...

MasterYourLife said:

Pedophilia. Not mentioned explicitly at all in the entire Bible. How would you explain it's a sin?

Click to expand...

First, the bible was very specific that sexual interactions are only done between a married man and women. If one is not married, then are not permitted to engage in sex with others.

Secondly, the bible states "between a man and woman". That in itself does not give you any excuse to use animals or children. A boy is not a man. A girl is not a woman. A goat is not a human and cannot be classified as man or woman.

So where is the confusion?

It's true. Scripture does cover, somewhere or other, those sinful actions that seem at first glance not to have been accounted for.

Acts2:38 said:

First, the bible was very specific that sexual interactions are only done between a married man and women. If one is not married, then are not permitted to engage in sex with others.

Secondly, the bible states "between a man and woman". That in itself does not give you any excuse to use animals or children. A boy is not a man. A girl is not a woman. A goat is not a human and cannot be classified as man or woman.

So where is the confusion?

Click to expand...

One person’s pedophilia is another person’s normal. By no means do I view pedophilia as correct or normal. However, even today certain cultures allow marriage between a 14-year old and a 20-year old for example. Something like that wouldn’t be frowned upon in biblical times. But we in the West would call that pedophilia. How do we account for cultural differences?

Albion said:

Perhaps not, and if you are not sympathetic to the POV, I'm relieved. I was describing the standard approach that dozens of RCs and EOs here have argued for on many occasions.

Click to expand...

Well, I am sympathetic. I'm just not arguing it here.

Wait a minute. I would point out that nothing about Sola Scriptura makes the individual a theological guru nor is that expected of members of those churches. Rather, the point is that Scripture IS the authority, not something else. It does not include any claim about the ability of every church member to get an interpretation of that authority's information correct.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe it's fairer to say this is true of low-church Protestantism, then. And--all apologies--I see low church as more essentially Protestant. But even high-church Protestant confessions sometimes assert exactly what you're disputing. Let's take the Westminster Confession--"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

We find nothing like that in the Augsburg Confession or the 39 Articles--no specific mention of how much the layman is expected to know--but the idea does lie dormant in the very idea of Sola scriptura that both do articulate. It's a very small leap from saying that Scripture alone defines what is forbidden to assuming a Scottish common-sense realist conclusion that, rather than Christian doctrine being enmeshed in a wide network of writings and practices that is difficult for any one layperson to comprehend, it is whittled down to a single book that any country bumpkin can understand without extensive education. "Okay," you say. "Low-church Covenanter Presbyterianism emerged out of high-church Church-of-Scotland Presbyterianism because they basically had it in their Confession from the get-go." All right. So where did Pietism come from? Where did Methodism come from? You say, "Well, it came by pollination from the Puritans." Yes. And the Puritans themselves were low-church, libertarian Anglicans. Low church has its point of origin in high-church Protestantism and took root easily among other high-church Protestants. There's no getting around it.

But then you go on to mention Wesley, so you seem to me to be acknowledging my point without realizing it. If the individual is to turn to someone who IS a theologian in order to better understand Scripture, the situation is no different from what RCs and EOs do when they take it from their leaders what it is they are supposed to believe Tradition is testifying to!

Click to expand...

I'm acknowledging nothing without realizing it. That's the exact point I am making! The debate of where authority lies is a red herring, and I might go one step further by opining that perhaps Catholics are disproportionately (relative to Orthodox) responsible for biting at that red herring. As I said before, I think the real difference is that Orthodoxy doesn't concern itself too strongly with making the layman (or even the clergyman) feel like he has to logically justify his belief, whereas the West generally does. And because the West does, the West focuses on that red herring of who does the justifying. Is there another important question? One that defines our differences? A question over what is justified? A question over what is considered protocanonical as opposed to deuterocanonical as opposed to tritocanonical as opposed to tetartocanonical, etc.? Sure. There are some of those questions even within governmentally unified Church communions. (Which is correct? The 1647 Westminster Confession or the 1789 revision? Was even just Calvin an anti-disestablishmentarian, a theonomist, or a traditional establishmentarian?) But Sola scriptura entertains the mistaken idea that there is no allocanon ("other canon"), that there is only protocanon, and the consequence is that Sola scriptura ends up not able to clearly and satisfactorily answer such questions as whether or not pedophilia is a sin. By accepting and openly acknowledging allocanon, Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) can clearly say, "Nope. Several Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church spoke about this, and we can be certain that the practice in question isn't an open question with respect to the teachings of the Apostles." I realize this seems like self-contradiction to you, but it's not. It's nuance.

Christ is Lord said:

One person’s pedophilia is another person’s normal. By no means do I view pedophilia as correct or normal. However, even today certain cultures allow marriage between a 14-year old and a 20-year old for example. Something like that wouldn’t be frowned upon in biblical times. But we in the West would call that pedophilia. How do we account for cultural differences?

Click to expand...

Another argument you can place for why pedophilia is wrong is by reading Romans 13. If you accept what Paul is saying that we should follow the laws of the land (when it's not in contribution to Christ's law) then you have another point of debating it. Most counties today view pedophilia as a crime therefore to go against that is going against the law of the land and God.