Holy Smoke

Did God not create these things? Did He not consider it good? We have way to many scruples

 

God created the hemlock plant as well. Is chewing that good?

 

You see I love the red herrings that are thrown up

 

It isn't pride nor a "better than thou" attitude that agree with Paul who states that though all things are lawful for me not everything is good for me to do. If Paul was prideful in abasing himself for his fellow brethren then go ahead and lump me in with him - and Jesus.

He abased Himself for our sakes, kept Himself for our sakes and gave Himself for our sakes. He said in the garden- not my will but yours. He was was doing for the Father when He 'could' have said no (speaking of the flesh not His divinity). But what the Father consern was the Church body, and so Christ's concern was for the Church, is not that a mandate to 'us' to be more concerned about the Church body than our personal fleshly desires we want to fulfill?

Tell you what, you want to call others out of their lack of understanding about Christian liberty compared to yours. Well... I'm game.

Let us not only speak about - "all things are lawful" but let us enter into the discussion about "Not everything is good for me" and about the "weaker brother" that is directly related to our Christain Liberty.

Please, let us begin our discourse. Speak about your rights to your desires and I will take up the other side of that coin where by according to our rights we are to consider others above ourselves or more apptly put - first.

 

Actually another poster who posted about what it means, you just have to find it. I will not interact with someone that bites at the bit to bind another's conscience such as you do. I have enough of that silliness it means not what you think, I am done.

I have liberty in Christ, you want to restrict yours fine do not sit in presumption to tell me what you think it means. Good day Sir I am going to enjoy a pint and a smoke you may enjoy your chains

 

Then you have not paid much attention to my posts.
Mine are not about what you are allowed to do and not do but what Christian liberty actaully entail and the resposibility that goes along with it.

You illistrate my point in post #51 exactly here. Trying throw your desires in the face of one you assume has an issue with it. It illistrates the very attitude I spoke of and becomes a very sad testimony indeed.

 

Just a correction to your correction:
"anything more than a limited or small amount" alters your thinking, your mobility, and is a health risk.

This is why Kings and princes were [NOT] supposed to drink wine or strong drink because they were to judge between issues at almost any time and even in small amounts it can cause bad judgment. It was also the reason priests were forbidden to partake of anything of like substance before their duties nor during them becuase God would kill them immediately due to their having to carry out His commands and preset tasks with a clear mind so as not to impare their judgment and actions.

But again please understand that I am not a total abstinace person though I do not drink such.

 

It is a fair question. But I think a more accurate question, about this issue, is why will we not go as far as needed that the Church of Christ be built up and strengthed till 'we all come to unity in the faith'?

This is really the issue. Paul didn't bring this issue as a side thought but it was something that even those during that age was wondering. Paul stated the extent that he would go is to never do it again as long as the world endured so that his brethren might not stumble due to him.

To be honest this is where most people don't understand the argument.
It isn't about what we have heard others states others hold to. Pauls example just as it should with us is those currently amoung us who 'we know' or that we have 'come to know' they have an issue regarding this. THEN we are to go to them and speak with them listen to them and then share with them. If they still maintain their stance that something is a 'sin' (regardless of our opinion) we are to uphold our weaker brother and continue in fellowship, praying for them, speaking with them 'till we come to the unity of faith in Christ Jesus'.

The issue comes down to this:
Will do whatever it takes to encourage, build up, and make a disciple of my brother in Christ?
OR
Will I deny my brother grace and mercy so I can enjoy fleshly/temporal pleasures?

What I have found in doing the above I have mentioned (regardless of how much time it takes) is that they will either lighten up on their stance, change their stance, or you will change yours

Who is the being overbearing though.
Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean here.

Again, what do you mean here?

You are correct (at least if they believe it IS a sin to so), at least in that moment of time because you don't know what your action will re-enforce them to go to or worse back into. But the issue is not just the the weaker brother here but you as well. To do something, you KNOW personally another brother or sister considers to be sinful, without regard for them and therefore their spiritual walk/life - Paul states TO YOU it has become a Sin. The action in and of itself is not sinful but your attitude toward your brethren is sinful and thus your action as well has become sinful.

Maybe, however to not do what scripture tells us regarding the weaker brother issue on these things is worse than the above because they are already walking/doing something contrary to the scriptures for no other reason than their own desires over the needs of their brethren.

 

:laugh: Oops, that completely changed the meaning. Thanks.

 

Hello Jedi Knight

You said in your OP..........
“I heard Spurgeon smokes cigars.”

How did you hear this. There are probably a lot better things to do in heaven.

 

It entails what you think and nothing more.

 

odd double posting.

 

Shall we take it to scripture?

Seriously, if it is only my opinion and isn't found in scripture then I need to know.

 

No I'm done with your spin, thanks for playing. You may bind your conscience all you want, you do not have the right to bind mine

 

It is just great to be told you don't believe the Bible because you do not believe someone else's interpretation of the Bible. I believe what Paul wrote about not offending a truly weaker brother. However, Paul also wrote about those that would go around and spy out others liberty in an effort to find something to use to put them under bondage. He questioned those that would trade their freedom for a set of rules (touch not, taste not, handle not) that did them absolutely no good other that giving them a look of spirituality and devotion. Paul expected people to grow and become mature and strong - to not live as perpetual weaklings.

People still go around looking for something to use to manipulate and control others behavior. We, like Paul, need to have the discernment to know when someone is truly weaker or just trying to put others into bondage under them.

 

So if some baptists own a vineyard or hops fields or just a full distillery, or work in some of those places, drinking would be ok just because of this test? Plenty of baptists own a farm, work in a restaurant or grocery store, etc., yet the bible says that if you are a glutton to slit your own throat. So obviously this is not a very good test.

Personally, I think it's all about moderation. If you smoke a cigar or pipe occasionally and responsibly, I think it's fine. If you are addicted and it's harming you and others, then it's not. I know people who very occasionally smoke and make sure it doesn't bother anybody and I don't think anything of it, but I also know pretty religious folks who can't make it between sunday school and church without a ciggy out in the parking lot and I think that's pretty bad.