Is frequent the theatre Sin?

I agree that I am done as well. This will be my closing argument - if you wish to add another closing argument that is fine, but I will not be addressing it as we would be going in circles.

Yes we agree love is the key to interpreting this passages as well as the whole of the Bible. But the whole of the Bible is how we understand what love is. Romans 14 tells us we can love our brother and still exercise our liberty, it is possible to do both. You hold because of I Cor 8 that the begining of Romans 14 cannot possibly be talking about two brothers, who hold different views on a subject, acting differently but both doing so responsibly to the Lord.

The stronger brother if he is eating meat, must be doing so in the wrong because how could he ever eat meat if it offends his weaker brother? I accept Romans 14 as one of many passages that help define what Christian love is, you dismiss, or try an reintrepret the first half of the chapter because it does not fit what you believe other passages of the Bible say about love.

You have attempted to look for compromises I might make with my wife as we dwell together to say I am required to do those same things for all believers - that simply is not the case and you have failed to prove such a case from the scriptures.

I have no problem with another believer having a different view on something, but I do find it interesting as someone else has brought up here the titles Paul assigns. He calls this brother who has the stricter belief, the weaker - that speaks volumns.

I also find it interesting that Paul publically corrected those who would teach additional rules, not just here in Romans 14 but in many other passages. These people who teach this convictions of the weaker brother as commands of God when in reality they are the commands of men need to be taken to task.

Charles Spurgeon, when he was attacked for saying he believed he could smoke a cigar to the glory of God said these enduring words that more fundamentalist need to heed:

Spurgeon said these words right after a
guest preacher preached from his pulpit about
smoking being a sin with the man still on the stage:

Later in a letter to a newspaper Spurgeon wrote:

As I have pointed out many times in this debate I will point out one final time here these scriptures.

The same Paul who wrote under the inspiration
of God these words -

"Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall."
1 Corinthians 8:13(NIV)

Also wrote these words -

"The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."
Romans 14:3

The same Paul who wrote under the inspiration
of God these words -

"20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall."
Romans 14:20-21

Also wrote these words -

"25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”"
1 Corinthians 10:25-26


The same Paul who wrote under the inspiration
of God these words -

"28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake– 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours."
1 Corinthians 10:28-29a

Also wrote these words -
"For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?"
1 Corinthians 10:29b-30

The same Paul who wrote under the inspiration
of God these words -

"If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died."
Romans 14:15

Also wrote -
"5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."
Romans 14:5-6

I will close with these scriptures which I remind myself of daily in regards to my liberty and as an exhortation to my fellow stronger brethren:

"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak."
1 Corinthians 8:9

"Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil."
Romans 14:16

"8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ...
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day...
22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their selfimposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."
Colossians 2:16

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."
1 Corinthians 10:31


IFBReformer

 

I really am done, but your "trump card" is so gloriously irresistible!

Can't you see that Spurgeon was violating your own liberal interpretation of Romans 14 et al, by flaunting his "liberty" in the faces of his "weaker" brethren?

Basically you've undone all your argument with one, wonderful fell swoop. Now the common courtesy which you insisted love demanded is giving place to Pharisaism!

 

I was going to let anything you said about the passages we have already discussed go since we have gone round and round. This is a different case.

The example of Spurgeon in no way hurts my case and only bolsters it.

Was Paul "flaunting his "liberty" in the faces of his "weaker" brethren?" when he wrote the entire chapter Romans 14 calling those
who abstained from meat weaker brothers?

Was Paul "flaunting his "liberty" in the faces of his "weaker" brethren?" when he
said "For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?" I Cor 10:29b-30

This is something you missed completely - The very fact that Paul publically addressed issues of liberty and took positions tells us ministers and those in authority can publically teach on these issues. After all, how would the weaker brother ever be "convinced in his own mind"(Romans 14:5) if preachers and teachers did not teach on these subjects.

When Paul spoke to us about not offending our brothers, it was to those brothers who were still in error on these issues and did not have
the faith they could do these things - on an individual basis. He was not saying a Pastor, or teacher could not publically take a position and teach the truth on these matters.

Paul proclaimed the truth and took a position on the issues, and so did Spurgeon - there was nothing wrong in that.

IFBReformer

 

If Paul was really just telling everybody to take on the convictions of the weaker brother as some here claim, why did he not just say that and get it over with? Why did he admonish those on both sides not to judge the other side if he really wanted the stronger to become like the weaker even if the weaker brother was nowhere to be found (i.e., not in the presence of the stronger)?

 

Aaron,

I just was thinking on this and had this thought - how do you think Paul would have handled the situation if someone stood in his pulpit and preached that it was a sin for Christians to ever eat meat(basically taking the weaker brothers position and saying it was not a position, but in fact the only right way)?

I think we have the question answer for us in Romans 14 - he would not have allowed false teaching to go unchallenged and he did not. Thats why he called the abstainers the "weaker" which I am sure some of them did not like in the least.

IFBReformer

 

Aaron will tell you that we do not have to take on their convictions, but we must act as if we hold to them. In essense we may have different convictions than theirs, but we may not act on those different convictions.

IFBReformer

 

This issue of Charles Spurgeon has taken this subject in a whole new direction so I think one more clarification would be good for our listening audience.

We know from Romans 14, I Cor 8 and I Cor 10 that
Paul was definitely not silent on these disputable matters. He called those who did not understand their freedom in these areas "weak". He challenged their convictions, but understood they needed to be convinced in their own minds and if they acted before they finally had that faith they would be sinning.

Lets say two weaker brothers were in his audience who did not have faith they could eat meat. One is convinced by Paul's words that he can eat and now has the faith that he can. The other believer still does not have the faith that he can eat meat.

That same day after Paul's speech about the Christians freedom, Paul goes to the market to buy meat and is met there by an unbeliever. That unbeliever invites him to dinner.

At the dinner the two believers who heard him in the crowd were there and they sit down to eat. Before they eat the one believer who still does not have faith raise the concern to Paul that this meat was offered to idols. Paul who had just spoken of the believer freedom to eat meat abstains in this case for the sake of this weaker brother.

The weaker brother who now believes Paul that he has freedom to eat is confused and asks Paul after the meal why he did not eat when he just told him he had the freedom to eat meat. Paul explains to him that he did not eat, not because
of his own conscience, but because of that of the other weaker brother. But if the other brother had not raised the issue and he did eat - why should he be evil spoken of for eating what God has made to be received with thanksgiving?

Its really that simple.

IFBReformer

 

Paul publicly said he would not eat meat as long as the world stood if it caused his brother to sin.

Spurgeon said he would smoke "to the glory of God" in his chamber before he retired for the night despite what anyone thought.

One is loving his brother, and the other is loving himself, and I would challenge Spurgeon (and anyone here) to show how smoking can bring glory to God.

My contention in this debate was not whether or not going to the theatre was a sin, but the ill use of Romans 14 et al.

So let's consider what was going on. Here I am, a first century jewish convert. I have a conscience toward certain meats because of my training in the OT, and especially toward meats offered to idols. I remember well the teachings of the rabbi's of God's jealousy, fiery wrath and righteous indignation on the idolatry of ancient Israel.

We finally learned our lesson, and after the Babylonian captivity idolatry never again surfaced in Israel—on the outside anyway. (We still cherished the idols in our hearts, but we didn't know that.)

I have heard the teaching that Christ purged all meats, that its not what goes into my mouth that defiles me, but what comes out. I know that Satan has been bound, that idols are nothing and have no power to defile meat despite the ignorant and superstitious beliefs of their worshippers.

But I can't shake the doubt. It was not given to me to eat meat offered to an idol with a clear conscience. I still fear, despite the teaching of Christ Himself and of His Apostles, that if I eat a pig, or even a cow that was offered to an idol, that I make myself either unclean or an idolater.

So I abstain. But wait...

Here I am at this feast. IFB throws a slice of ham on my plate. He doesn't know my feelings. I just met him, but what do I do? Well, I heard the teachings. Paul said it isn't wrong to eat this ham...oh, man! There's that twinge of doubt again! Well, I know that Paul's eating meat (after all, he didn't really mean that he would abstain from meat for my sake, even though that's what he said. It was just hyperbole.) Well, here goes! If Paul's eating it then I can.

Ooh! Twinge of doubt again! Deep down, I really think I'm offending the Majesty of Heaven by doing this, but...

chomp! chomp!

...

I just sinned because I didn't eat the ham, which in and of itself is good and was created to be received with thanksgiving, with the FAITH that it was good.

And the behavior of one who I know to be strong in the faith (not IFB, but Paul) emboldened me to wound my weak conscience, because I knew that he practiced eating meat whether in my presence or not.

So he sinned also, because he did not in his day to day life have regard for me and my weak conscience.

He did not walk in love.

It's that simple.

 

I guess I still don't see what is so simple. Isn't your doubt a weakness? Do you intend to live your entire Christian life with that doubt? Will you ever grow in your faith to the point where you actually believe the truth that it is not what goes into the man that defiles him. Why are you judging Paul when you have been told not to judge those who eat what God has cleansed. It seems you would rather have everyone cater to your weakness (and of course, they don't love you if they don't) rather than growing in your faith.

 

I challenge our listening audience to look at I Cor 10:23-33 and then compare my presentation of what Paul would do with what Aaron has presented.

Sure if you took a big black magic marker and rubbed out verses 25,26,27 and the latter part of verse 29 and 30 you might be able to come to Aaron's view.

Oh and let Aaron explain something he has never been able to explain these two passages side by side:

"13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall."
1 Corinthians 8:13

"25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”"
I Corinthians 10:25

But should'nt the believer in Aaron's view, be concerned with eating meat sold in the market for the sake of his weaker brother's conscience? Should'nt he be abstaining? Has Paul here contradicted himself? Of course not, if we understand 1 Corinthians 8:13 is a hyperbole.

IFBReformer

 

How long are these actions going to last without adopting the convictions yourselve? My experience is that trying to change behavior without having deep convictions about it just does not last. I may avoid doing something for a very short period of time, but then I go right back to what I did before. However, when my convictions changed first, then my actions followed suit and lasted.

This view also takes away any responsibility of the person to grow and become more solid in faith. God does not want anybody to remain an infant for long. He wants us to grow and mature and become strong.

 

There is no difficulty here, Larry. If you know that something sold in the shambles was offered to an idol, then you are not to buy it for the sake of the weaker brother's conscience. So, don't ask any questions.

Paul said he had perfect liberty to lead about a wife, but he didn't for the sake of the Gospel. He also had perfect liberty to receive wages for preaching, but he didn't, again for the sake of the Gospel. It would be tough to say these liberties could cause a weaker brother to stumble like eating meat offered to idols, and yet this is how he lived his life from day to day--all for the sake of the Gospel. Paul held up his life of sacrifice and service as an example of how one is to live, not for his own profit, but for the profit of others.

Were his celibacy and poverty mere hyperbole? Marriage and compensation were liberties Paul surrendered for mere expediency, yet you would assert that his abstinence from meats, the eating of which could actually cause one under his tutelage to sin especially during the first century, was just a gross exaggeration to make a point?

Again, what point? That you should do just as you please when your weaker brothers aren't looking?

The reason you think his statement is hyperbole is not because of the text, but inspite of it. You still do not see love as it is presented to us by Christ. Paul laid down his life for his friends, and there is no greater love than that.

If your wife had a conscience toward alcohol, could you say you loved her if you went ahead and drank wine only when she wasn't looking? We know that the temperate consumption of alcohol is no sin. You have liberty to partake. Why should your conscience be judged by your wife?

Even the world would recognize this kind of "love" as cold and sottish.

Now you will say that it's different within a marriage. How?

You only think the love is different because it feels different, not because of anything the One Who is Love said to us in the Scriptures. As I've shown you before, the love with which a man is commanded to love his wife is the same as the love he is commanded to have for his family in Christ. John 13:34, 15:13; Ephesians 5:25. Nature itself is teaching you through your marriage that love is not defined by how you act only in one's presence, and that it isn't at all in the liberties you refuse to forebear for the sake of the loved one.

If you can't transfer the attitude you have toward your brothers in Christ to your relationship with your wife and call it love, then you can't call your attitude toward your brothers in Christ love either.

It's that simple.

[ April 01, 2005, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Yes, we're speaking of weaker brothers here.

My intentions are irrelevant. The fear and doubt I am able to overcome depend on the grace that is given to me.

See above.

Who's judging Paul?

Again, my druthers are irrelevant, it's what's commanded by the Holy Spirit.

 

"25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”"
I Corinthians 10:25

Nothing here in this passage indicates anything close to your interpretation. If your interpretation were correct, they would need to make sure they were not eating meat offered to idols and would indeed have to ask questions of conscience. How can they just live anyway they want outside the presense of their weaker brother?

In the next section Paul tells them if an unbeliever invites them to a meal again not to ask questions of conscience. It was practically guarenteed that meat at this unbelievers house would have been offered to idols - if your interpreteation were correct they could never go to this meal in the first place with this knowledge.

Paul makes it clear that only if the issue is raised(most commentators agree here that it is either a weaker brother or a unbeliever trying to
set a trap) then in this case Paul would not eat the meat. But if the question is not raised, and he may even know because this is a meal at an unbelievers house this meat is offered to idols it makes no difference.

In fact Paul asks if the question of the meat's source had not been raised by someone at the dinner(in his presense!) - why would he be evil spoken of for eating it? Why would his liberty be judged of another's conscience?

Once again you have failed to answer this critical passage of scripture.

Your other assertions that compromises I would make for my wife who I become one flesh with and live with are the same compromises I should make to all believers outside my home and even my presense falls short of scriptural basis.

Yes Paul made many sacrifices, but he made it clear especially in the area of marriage this was a gift that God enabled him to go without a wife. Not all brothers had this gift, and he made it clear there was no sin in marriage, in fact he said it was wrong to forbid to marry.

Again I Cor 10 is direct proof that your whole position is on faulty ground, and that indeed Paul's words in I Cor 8 about never eating meat again are a hyperbole - whether you want to believe it or not.

IFBReformer

 

No.

 

It's not critical. Love is the critical issue, and when you don't understand love, you can't understand what Paul is saying in your so-called "critical" passages.

It's interesting that you appeal to unity with your wife to say that loving her as Christ loved the church means that you must live each moment as if she were in your presence and yield your liberties for the sake of her conscience as to the weaker vessel.

Yet, to love your blood-bought weaker brother in Christ as Christ loved him, who is one with you as the Father and the Son are One, who by the Spirit lives with you and has all things in common, doesn't mean that you live each moment as if he were in your presence.

[Though he's not present with you in body, he is in the spirit. You would understand that if you understood unity.]

And when you make these sacrifices for your wife, who in the Resurrection will cease to be your wife, she is not judging your conscience, but to yield so for your brother, who will be your brother always now and in the world to come is letting him be a judge of your conscience.

So you see, it's your view of love that is affecting your interpretation of the passages. I've already shown you that the command to love your wife is the same as the command to love your brother, and yet you obstinantly persist in your claim that I haven't shown you.

You're forgetting that he held his celibacy and poverty up as examples of yielding rights for the sake of the Gospel and as a model for yielding to the conscience of the weaker brother in meats offered to idols. He just as clearly said it was wrong to command to abstain from certain meats, and that there was no sin in eating them or in eating meat that offered to an idol.

You cannot come from 1 Cor. 8 - 10 with an idea other than that his abstinance from meats was in like manner to his other sacrifices. Your claim that it was hyperbole comes only from your prejudices, NOT from the passages.

 

Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner


Hey, IFB and Aaron,
I thought you guys were done?

Fortunately only 8 more pages to go, all to come to the same conclusion as Gib

 

Actually I have looked through my posts and I don't think I have ever said that I believe I must live my life every momment as if my wife is in my presense.

If I make a commitment to my wife, to abstain from alchohal at all times(I think that was your example) then I will do that because I have made that commitment to her. I make several such commitments to her as she does to me, but that does not mean I must act every momment as if my wife is in my presense.

The only person whom I must act every momment as if they are in my presense is God. In fact I challenge you to prove from the scriptures such a concept of every having to act like certain persons are in your presense.

In fact there are certain things that I may not do in my wifes presense that I may do in other's presense just because I know it may annoy her, but that does not mean I can't do it at all.

And yes we agree again that this all comes down to how you see the Bible presenting Christian love.

You come to Romans 14, I Cor 8 & 10 and any other passages relating to Christian liberty and see those passages through a preconceived notion of love you have built from other passages.

I on the other hand, include Romans 14, I Cor 8 & 10 in what I see as the Biblical definition of Christian love. The Bible interprets itself, I think you and I would agree on that.

As I have told you many times, I might be able to agree with your view of love, had it not been for Paul telling us it is actually possible to love our weaker brother who has different convictions, and us have our own convictions and act upon those convictions.

You refuse to accept that it is possible even though the Apostle puts it right in front of you. If no one would have raise the issue of the meat at the dinner he would have eaten it, and he asked why he would have been evil spoken of for doing so if no would have raised the question(and it was in his presense).

IFBReformer

 

Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner


Hey, IFB and Aaron,
I thought you guys were done?

Fortunately only 8 more pages to go, all to come to the same conclusion as Gib </font>[/QUOTE]SuperDave, I thought we were done as well, but we got off a little on Spurgeon.

I got a big laugh out of Gibs post - it was actually a breath of fresh air.

IFBReformer

 

Actually I have looked through my posts and I don't think I have ever said that I believe I must live my life every momment as if my wife is in my presense.</font>[/QUOTE]You know what I mean. :rolleyes:

Well, the first question was, could you say that the woman who does things to grieve her husband, even if she were to have perfect liberty under the Gospel to do these things, was loving her husband.

You said no, she isn't loving her husband, but that the love a man is commanded to have for his wife is different than the love we're commanded to have for our brothers. Then you got hung up on he authority angle of the situation saying that she was to obey you in matters of conscience anyway.

So I switched it around and asked if it could be said that a man that does such things is loving his wife. No woman has authority over a man. [Don't get into a tizzy about civil authority and such like. In the home and in the Church, no woman is given authority over the man.] The man is only commanded to love his wife, not to obey her.

You never answered that situation directly, but your objection was the same, the love is different, so I assumed the answer would be the same.

Perhaps I assumed incorrectly. Please answer the question directly.

Can a man exercise his liberty to consume alcohol in moderation even though his wife has a genuine and weak conscience toward wine as an evil thing if he only does so when she's not looking? Can it be said that he is demonstrating love for her when he does exercise his liberty to imbibe as along as he is "very careful" to do so only when she is not around?

Is that love?

Yes or no, please. Feel free to elaborate more if you wish, but answer yes or no.

Is your wife judging your liberty, if she asks you to make such a commitment? (We're assuming here that the hypothetical "you" partakes of wine regularly, and that the only reason you would make such a commitment is for the sake of your wife.)

Yes or no, please.

We're not talking about flatulence. We're talking about genuine matters of conscience.