Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines

This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.

If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christians working on Sundays

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I disagree that Paul was referring to Jewish believers.
    I think he was in Romans 14, and the topic was in regards to dietary restrictions and holy days.

    What in Acts 15:20 was NOT about Jew and Gentile coming together?
    Acts 15:20 was during the times of the fruition of the New Testament church and at this point it was necessary to appease the Jewish brethren who were still zealous for the law and yet unclear as to the OT regulations under the New Covenant. Paul explains in his letters what significance meat sacrificed to idols actually wields and in Romans 14 he explains that the strong brethren pretty much eat anything because of their strong conscience rooted in the gospel. He also explains in his other letters that we must still abstain from sexual immorality and therefore that is the only command that remains from Acts 15:20.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      I think he was in Romans 14, and the topic was in regards to dietary restrictions and holy days.
      Romans 14 talks about people abstaining from meat entirely, which is a different proposition.
      Acts 15:20 was during the times of the fruition of the New Testament church and at this point it was necessary to appease the Jewish brethren who were still zealous for the law and yet unclear as to the OT regulations under the New Covenant. Paul explains in his letters what significance meat sacrificed to idols actually wields and in Romans 14 he explains that the strong brethren pretty much eat anything because of their strong conscience rooted in the gospel. He also explains in his other letters that we must still abstain from sexual immorality and therefore that is the only command that remains from Acts 15:20.
      What of Revelation 2:14? I'm pretty sure that comes after Paul's last letters. Again, Romans 14 is a different situation. Lastly, from whence comes this theory of progressive revelation (or abrogation of what comes earlier) within the New Covenant?
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Romans 14 talks about people abstaining from meat entirely, which is a different proposition.
        Romans 14 talks about all food indeed being clean:

        - "One person has faith that he may eat all things.." (Rom. 14:2).

        - "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself.." (Rom. 14:14).

        - "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean.." (Rom. 14:20)

        Romans 14 also categorizes holy days as a matter of conscience as well. Though I think it is fair to say that the strong brother regards all days alike in the light of the gospel.

        What of Revelation 2:14?
        Revelation 2:14 states:

        "But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality."

        I would look at in light of what Paul spoke of in 1Cor. 8:10:

        "For if someone weak sees you who possess knowledge dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience be "strengthened" to eat food offered to idols?"

        So, Paul cautions against putting a stumbling-block in the way of the weak; lest they be made bold to eat what was offered to the idol, not as common food, but as a sacrifice, and thereby be guilty of idolatry. Paul states we need to act in love and be sensitive to the weaker brother's conscience.

        whence comes this theory of progressive revelation (or abrogation of what comes earlier) within the New Covenant?
        I think this area would best be discussed in another thread.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          Sabbath was made for man, and not the other way around. It is wise advice to take a day of rest per week if at all possible. This does not have to be Sunday, even. (I work two jobs, one of which schedules me every Sunday, so Sunday is out for me.) Many pastors try to follow this principle, and may choose Monday as their day of rest, for example. There is strong practical wisdom in what God initially revealed with the Sabbath teaching, but Jesus is giving us more leeway in how to apply this to our own lives.
          The pastor I mentioned chose Monday as his day of rest. His reason was that he works on Sunday in the church, but could choose to have Mondays off from his other job. This was the first time I had heard this concept taught in church. I had always been told that it had to be Sunday.
          Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
            I wonder... could it have something to do with Easter Sunday?
            This is the explanation that I have always heard.
            Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              There is only one Christ who clearly says there is but ONE WAY to get to God, and that is through Christ.
              I suspect many of us meet Christ without knowing it:

              Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?"
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                I suspect many of us meet Christ without knowing it:

                Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?"
                A beautiful parable, indeed.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  Yes but anyone who say denies the divinity of Christ has not merely understood God differently, but rather has not understood God at all.
                  I tend to agree with that old liberal Cow Poke about the greater importance of orthopraxis over orthodoxy. There is an implicit understanding of God in all of our actions that seek that which is truly good.

                  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...riptural/page6
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    I tend to agree with that old liberal Cow Poke about the greater importance of orthopraxis over orthodoxy.
                    orthowhatsis and whatsadoxis?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      I suspect many of us meet Christ without knowing it:

                      Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?"
                      I think we can look at this from the perspective of how Christian's treat the "least of these brethren of mine" - Christ personally identifies with his church. Believers who serve the household of God out of a genuine love for them are often times not even conscious of their good deeds because they naturally love Christ's church so they are surprised when Christ turns to them and says "you did all this to me!".

                      Of course we cannot come to the conclusion that people who are dead in their sins and yet treat a few Christian's kindly will enter into eternal life/heaven, right?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                        I think we can look at this from the perspective of how Christian's treat the "least of these brethren of mine" - Christ personally identifies with his church. Believers who serve the household of God out of a genuine love for them are often times not even conscious of their good deeds because they naturally love Christ's church so they are surprised when Christ turns to them and says "you did all this to me!".

                        Of course we cannot come to the conclusion that people who are dead in their sins and yet treat a few Christian's kindly will enter into eternal life/heaven, right?
                        You can come to whatever conclusion you like. As for me and my house, we will stick with Matthew's gospel.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                          Romans 14 talks about all food indeed being clean:

                          - "One person has faith that he may eat all things.." (Rom. 14:2).

                          - "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself.." (Rom. 14:14).

                          - "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean.." (Rom. 14:20)

                          Romans 14 also categorizes holy days as a matter of conscience as well. Though I think it is fair to say that the strong brother regards all days alike in the light of the gospel.
                          Context matters. Romans 14 is not at all talking about the same thing.
                          Revelation 2:14 states:

                          "But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality."

                          I would look at in light of what Paul spoke of in 1Cor. 8:10:

                          "For if someone weak sees you who possess knowledge dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience be "strengthened" to eat food offered to idols?"

                          So, Paul cautions against putting a stumbling-block in the way of the weak; lest they be made bold to eat what was offered to the idol, not as common food, but as a sacrifice, and thereby be guilty of idolatry. Paul states we need to act in love and be sensitive to the weaker brother's conscience.
                          So why are you arguing against being sensitive here? Yes, it's theoretically okay in a sense to eat meat sacrificed to idols. I choose not to. I can see that you're not being consistent; you're willing to interpret Revelation in light of 1 Corinthians, but not 1 Corinthians in light of Acts.
                          I think this area would best be discussed in another thread.
                          No doubt.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            You can come to whatever conclusion you like. As for me and my house, we will stick with Matthew's gospel.
                            Hopefully not at the expense of Pauline doctrine.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                              Hopefully not at the expense of Pauline doctrine.
                              I have a great deal of respect for Paul. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                I have a great deal of respect for Paul. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
                                Amen, the Holy Spirit inspired Apostle Paul said some hard things, and respect should lead to obedience to those hard doctrines that the natural man finds distasteful.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X