Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Let the Paraclete teach your conscience.21 Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God
I am not going to argue against that, brotherIs it the Bible that dictates what Christians should do or wherein their freedom lies? The Bible says an eye for an eye. Jesus, via the Bible, says turn the other cheek. It seems Jesus is the standard for Christian freedom (or not), not the Bible. If he asserts authority over a scriptural claim, and overrides it with his own, then they are not equal in authority. It seems to me, the question is: Who has authority, the living Christ or the scriptures about the living Christ? Put that way, it's clear that Christ is our reference point for Christian freedom (or not). The scriptures aid us, but the scriptures are held to a higher standard.
Hello @tonychanyt et @public hermit, here's a short, well-written article about the OT's, an "eye for an eye", on the one hand, and the NT's, "turning the other cheek", on the other. Understanding both of these principles a bit better should prove to be helpful in this discussion.
So, here you go.
The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided.We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages.Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally.In the New Testament, it seems the Pharisees and scribes had taken the “eye for an eye” principle and applied it to everyday personal relationships. They taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable. If someone punched you, you could punch him back; if someone insulted you, he was fair game for your insults. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day ignored the judicial basis of the giving of that law.In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42).In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out.Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. (On the other hand) the principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind.I hope that the article above was helpful in at least beginning to discover why BOTH principles are important, and why we have no reason to wade into such deep water over any of this (by sullying the Bible and/or by pitting its Divine Author against Himself).
God bless you!!
--David
Hello again Public Hermit, you're notDavid, I appreciate you, but I'm not a fundamentalist..
Although I'm not totally sure what you mean, is discussing a topic in the hope of coming to a better, mutual understanding of it (of God's truth, that is) something that you believe is foreign (or perhaps useless) to one or both of our two Christian camps (liberal/conservative)?You can stop as soon as you're ready. Thanks!
Hello @public hermit, I was tired and a bit slow on the uptake when I wrote the above. I see the problem that you have with my earlier post now, so I will go and remove the offending sentence (and then address what you had to say in your first post in a better way and in a different post).p.s. - "You can stop as soon as you're ready"?? For clarity's sake I must ask, stop what exactly? Thanks again!
In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from any of God’s laws, but in order redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to do what God has revealed through his law to be sin. When someone abuse me Scripture to try to justify their freedom to sin and their conscience isn’t bothered by doing what God had revealed through His law to be sin, then that is a clear indication that they have a seared conscience, not that the Spirit condones sin.The Bible clearly forbids and permits certain behaviors. In some situations, it is up to the individual believer. Romans 14:
1 John 3:
Let the Paraclete teach your conscience.
Jesus is God’s word made flesh, so it is contradictory to contrast God’s word with the one who perfectly embodies God’s word.Is it the Bible that dictates what Christians should do or wherein their freedom lies? The Bible says an eye for an eye. Jesus, via the Bible, says turn the other cheek. It seems Jesus is the standard for Christian freedom (or not), not the Bible. If he asserts authority over a scriptural claim, and overrides it with his own, then they are not equal in authority. It seems to me, the question is: Who has authority, the living Christ or the scriptures about the living Christ? Put that way, it's clear that Christ is our reference point for Christian freedom (or not). The scriptures aid us, but the scriptures are held to a higher standard.
Thanks for sharingHello @tonychanyt et @public hermit, here's a short, well-written article about the OT's, an "eye for an eye", on the one hand, and the NT's, "turning the other cheek", on the other. Understanding both of these principles a bit better should prove to be helpful in this discussion.
So, here you go.
The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided.We have no indication that the law of “an eye for an eye” was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13–26)—a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goods—if you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages.Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally.In the New Testament, it seems the Pharisees and scribes had taken the “eye for an eye” principle and applied it to everyday personal relationships. They taught that seeking personal revenge was acceptable. If someone punched you, you could punch him back; if someone insulted you, he was fair game for your insults. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day ignored the judicial basis of the giving of that law.In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the (Pharisees/scribes) common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42).In giving this “new” command, Jesus is not nullifying the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17). Rather, He is separating the responsibility of the government (to punish evildoers justly) from the responsibility we all have on a personal level before God to love our enemies. We should not seek retribution for personal slights. We are to ignore personal insults (the meaning of “turn the other cheek”). Christians are to be willing to give more of their material goods, time, and labor than required, even if the demands upon us are unjust. We should loan to those who want to borrow, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (verses 43–48). Enforcing “an eye for an eye” is the magistrate’s job; forgiving our enemies is ours. We see this played out today every time a victim stands up in court to publicly forgive a convicted criminal—the forgiveness is personal and real, but the judge still justly demands that the sentence be carried out.Jesus’ limiting of the “eye for an eye” principle in no way prohibits self-defense or the forceful protection of the innocent from harm. The actions of duly appointed agents of the government, such as police officers and the military, to protect citizens and preserve the peace are not in question. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek applies to personal relationships, not judicial policy. (On the other hand) the principle of “an eye for an eye” is meant as a judicial policy, not as a rule for interpersonal relationships. The believer in Christ is guided by Jesus’ words to forgive. The Christian is radically different from those who follow the natural inclination to respond in kind.I hope that the article above was helpful in at least beginning to discover why BOTH principles are important, and why we have no reason to wade into such deep waters over any of this!
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - the OT's an eye for an eye was never intended to be the 'standard' (punishment for a certain crime), but a 'limitation' instead (so that snoring, for instance, no matter how horrible, loud and offensive it got, could never be considered a capital crime, punishable by death).
Did I assert the above?the freedom to do what God has revealed through his law to be sin.
Hello @public hermit, I was tired and a bit slow on the uptake when I wrote the above. I see the problem that you have with my earlier post now, so I will go and remove the offending sentence (and then address what you had to say in your first post in a better way and in a different post).
--David
Sorry if I have misunderstood you. People often misinterpret Romans 14 as being in regard to saying that some of the things that have been commanded or prohibited by God are a matter of conscience, in which case we have the freedom to do what God has revealed through His law to be sin, but in reality it is only where God has given no command that are a matter of conscience.Did I assert the above?
THIS ^When Jesus directly quoted from what was written in God’s word in Matthew 4, he preceded it by saying “it is written…”, but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being said in Matthew 5, he preceded it by saying “you have heard that it was said…”, so he was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had wrongly been taught about what was written.
AND THIS TOO ^An eye for an eye is still a good guideline for judges to help ensure fair sentencing where the consequences do not escalate out of proportion to the offense, but it was a guideline that was only intended to be used by judges and was not intended to be used in personal situations to justify taking revenge into our own hands. In those situations, we are instructed not to respond in kind (Psalms 24:29). Likewise, turning the other cheek is in accordance with Scripture (Lamentations 3:28-30).
Hello again Public Hermit, I'm glad to know that no offense was takenYou're gracious, David. I didn't mean that you offended me. I meant that I don't assume that every bit of scripture needs to be in some kind of harmony. I'm fine with the fact that Jesus abrogates a claim of scripture. In fact, it makes sense.
One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
View attachment 334125
Adiaphora
https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/adiaphora (6-minute audio at link, transcript below)
How should we make choices on matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture? Barry Cooper (Simply Put Webcast/Ligonier) considers how Christians should exercise the freedom that God has given us.
TranscriptShould Christians eat meat? Should we hold church services at 9 a.m. on a Sunday? And should Christians subscribe to Simply Put?I’m obviously tempted to be dogmatic about that last one, but these kinds of choices would be what some theologians would call adiaphora—things which are neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture.Adiaphora is the plural of the Greek word adiaphoron, which refers to a thing that exists outside of moral categories, something that in and of itself is neither approved nor condemned. Adiaphora literally means “indifferent things.”Other examples would be the color of the carpet you decide to put in your living room, your choice of podcast app, or your preference of Coke, Pepsi, or Mountain Dew. There would be nothing wrong in making particular choices in these areas; there’s freedom to do as you please.Try as we might to argue that there really ought to be specific Levitical laws against the consumption of Mountain Dew, no such laws actually exist in Scripture, which means that God has granted us freedom to decide whether or not to drink it. In that sense, drinking Mountain Dew is spiritually neutral, even though it may be dietarily questionable.Another example of adiaphora is the precise way in which we choose to apply God’s law. For example, as Christians, we’re obliged to love others, but what loving others will look like in practice, given your particular set of circumstances and opportunities, falls into the category of adiaphora. You have freedom to love others in whichever ways will bring glory to God, and God will be glorified by whichever way you choose to love others, as long as it doesn’t conflict with God’s moral law.We shouldn’t try to bind the consciences of other believers on matters to do with adiaphora, where God Himself has permitted freedom. For example, if the conscience of a particular believer says he shouldn’t ever drink alcohol under any circumstances, other believers should not encourage that person to go against their conscience. But at the same time, the teetotaler shouldn’t condemn believers who enjoy the occasional glass of wine.The same would go for those who are convinced vegetarians or who are convinced that we ought to celebrate a particular religious festival on a certain day. Paul puts it this way in Romans chapter 14:
Paul goes further and says that if you happen to know your Christian brother is convinced that eating meat is wrong, and that he’s likely to go against his conscience by copying you if he sees you tearing into a medium-rare steak, you should exercise love for that brother by not doing so.We do this, says Paul, to pursue peace and mutual upbuilding. By recognizing that certain things are in themselves adiaphora, we avoid quarreling or giving offense over mere opinions, squabbling about matters which ultimately, we don’t have to agree on because they’re not necessary for salvation.Of course, there is occasionally a debate about whether a particular thing is adiaphora or not. Some, for example, might argue that the use of an electric guitar in a church service falls into the category of adiaphora. But others would disagree.It’s also worth saying that in one sense, nothing we do is spiritually neutral, because everything we do can be—and ought to be—done to the glory of God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 that “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”So that means, of course, that we can choose a carpet for our living room, choose a podcast app, grow a beard, or drink a painfully sugary soft drink—all to the glory of God. Or we could do all those things without doing it to the glory of God. So although we might consider them adiaphora, spiritually neutral in themselves, all these things in practice are either honoring to God or dishonoring to Him—depending on whether or not we do them to the glory of God. The attitude of our hearts is what matters.And this shouldn’t surprise us. Even actions which would usually be considered morally good can become morally bad when they’re done in a certain way. Think, for example, of Isaiah chapter 1, where God condemns people who are doing very religious things—because they’re doing them hypocritically. The attitude of the heart towards God is all-important.So, as believers, we should be united in our desire to obey God’s laws. And we should feel free to exercise freedom in matters not necessary to salvation, but as we exercise that freedom, we should be mindful of our brothers and sisters in Christ.In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.
As important. With deference. With joy and thanksgiving. How do you treat things that are commanded in the Scriptures?How should we treat things that are commanded in scripture?
As important. With deference. With joy and thanksgiving. How do you treat things that are commanded in the Scriptures?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?