Living in Sin or just roommates who love each other?
- Thread starter TEXBOW
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
First an honest analysis of Romans 14 makes it clear that the context of Pauls message is the relationship between Jew and Gentile, Law and Faith. The issues, meat, Sabbath, clean or unclean are clearly continuous issue between the Jew and Gentile in the Church. Gentiles having no feelings of guilt of matters because they were never under the law. The Jews who accepted the Messiah and salvation by faith still were following the Mosaic law. Paul himself desired to attend the Jewish festivals and participated in historical Jewish customs. Romans 14 in context is an effort to remove the legacy Mosaic law beliefs (meats for Idol sacrifice etc) and Gentiles salvation by faith alone with none of the legacy Mosaic law customs and beliefs or guilts resulting from those activities like eating the meat. Paul was teaching that these legacy customs should be understood by the Gentiles and that the Jews should not impute their customs upon the Gentiles. (Your not a true believer if you eat the meat nor Gentiles demanding that they no longer refrain from eating the meat, that its all ok and your stuck in the law and not living by faith. This argument is still going on today.
I do not see Romans 14 as a blueprint for adjusting all things you do in the event a Church member is offended or calls it into question.
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
Well, whatever they think is their problem. People can presume things about other people as much as they like. Usually these people are trouble makers.
Maybe they should read their bibles and look in their own backyard and not be busybodies.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
I agree except that it is not just their problem. Romans 14 is very clear that it is our problem if the exercise of our (legitimate) freedom causes a weaker believer to sin against their conscience regarding something they consider to be sinful (how much more so if it actually is sinful!). It's right there in Romans 14.
It was my understanding that "Love conquers all". ;)
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Not really true, but it's probably not worth arguing the point. Especially since it's clear that Paul expands the teaching to cover all things in dispute:
"21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble." Romans 14:21
The issue of vasectomy is a good example. That's not a Jew vs. gentile, law vs. faith thing, but something that may be in dispute as to whether or not one should get one. Like I say, it was wrong for me to do it. My wife's fertility cycle served a valuable spiritual purpose in my life and when that purpose got removed all hell broke loose. My decision was heavily influenced by what other Christian men were doing in the church we were attending at the time. Don't get me started but I get very angry when I think about all the very unspiritual and ungodly and worldly counsel I've been exposed to in the church. The church in general is not very spiritually minded. It's very carnally minded.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Neither me or my wife had a job when we got married.
We had $800.00 bucks and a car and that was enough to get us started.
I'd relive those days in a heartbeat.
Better this time around, though, lol.
I've learned a few things.
(Now that I'm thinking about it, it might have been $400.00, lol)
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
I know you were being funny, but what point in her post were you kidding about stumbling about?
The Institute of marriage. I think the marriage commitment under our laws is important. We as Christians are not at liberty to break laws even if we disagree with them. BUT as I pointed out, nothing to cause a stumble.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Do I understand you correctly, that you are all for the matter of legal marital commitment, but not for the reason of preventing a weak believer to potentially stumble if they find out that you don't have a legally binding commitment?
I'm in favor of following the law in regard to marriage. I do not buy into your weak believer as an excuse to lock your doors and hide in your house. Weakness of "a" believer as you define it could be "anything". When Peter picked some grain on the sabbath Jesus didn't reprimand Peter that he might cause a Pharisee to stumble. When Jesus healed on the sabbath he was not worried about someone stumbling. This might seem contrary to Pauls teaching if you do not understand the context in what Paul was teaching. You cannot allow man to dictate your walk of faith. There are those who can find offense in EVERYTHING. Serve the Lord boldly.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
Paul is saying let love dictate your walk of faith.
There are, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to consider how the exercise of our freedoms affects other people.
For example, I learned the hard way to keep what you think about alcohol consumption between you and your liquor cabinet.
It's an important subject. But as I've said, I've noticed over the years that few Christians understand it. I mean American Christians. We're very possessive and arrogant about our freedoms.
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
I would be concerned if its a legit behavior not an assumption.
Rudometkin
Active Member
Why do you draw the line at common sense? The weak do not adhere to common sense.
It is common sense that the couple is not necessarily sinning. But the weak think otherwise.
It doesn't sound to me like you are absolutely interested in refraining from what is perceived as sin since you draw the line at "common sense".
Interesting!
Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
If you've been reading my posts I do not give any liberty to do what the OP is describing.
And as far as common sense. Here's an example.
7th day church attendance. To not do that is an offense to some believers who think you have to meet on the 7th day. According to a strict, legalistic interpretation of Romans 14, everyone who doesn't do that is required to keep what they think about that to themselves and keep their 1st day church attendance a secret. Common sense says that's unrealistic. That's just not something you can hide. The most you can do toward not being a stumbling block in that situation would be for the 1st day church goer to not talk about it with the other person, except by mutual agreement, and not with the goal of changing that person but merely explaining why they believe they don't need to meet on the 7th day.
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
We had a woman from our church living with a fellow in the same mobile home together.
Both in their 70's. Yes sleeping in different rooms. Living as room mates. I knew her very well.
There was lots of gossip about this couple and "how evil".
Anyhow, the lady was well aware of the gossip.
One day she was in the local big box store shopping for supplies and at the other end of the isle
she saw one of her fellow (male) church goers.
She yelled real loud at him WE ARE NOT HAVING SEX!!!!. 2x
It was very busy in the store and needless to say everybody was looking around who
she was yelling at. :-)
Both in their 70's. Yes sleeping in different rooms. Living as room mates. I knew her very well.
There was lots of gossip about this couple and "how evil".
Anyhow, the lady was well aware of the gossip.
One day she was in the local big box store shopping for supplies and at the other end of the isle
she saw one of her fellow (male) church goers.
She yelled real loud at him WE ARE NOT HAVING SEX!!!!. 2x
It was very busy in the store and needless to say everybody was looking around who
she was yelling at. :-)
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
And it might be difficult to resist temptation under such close quarters.
Similar threads
