# Is Chewing Tobacco a Sin?



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 23, 2020)

I was surprised today to learn of some well known Christians who have the habit of chewing tobacco.  I went back and reviewed the Biblical principles of moderation I had articulated in our discussions of Marijuana and Alcohol last year.

In every case of marijuana use I have ever known of personally, more than one of these principles indicates the use is excessive to the point of sinfulness. Consider these principles of moderation adapted from the drinking discussion:

1. The excess is compulsive - one cannot stop even though one wants to stop or knows one should stop.
2. The excess is taking significant time or resources away from commitments and Biblical obligations.
3. The excess is harming third parties or putting them at significant risk.
4. The excess is illegal (driving impaired).
5. The excess often leads to sin in predictable ways (stealing to support drug or gambling habits, leading to fighting, sexual sin, or driving impaired).
6. The excess leads to predictable health risks as do excessive smoking, eating, and drinking alcohol.
7. Family members/spouse are asking you to moderate behavior and you are unable to.
8. The excessive behavior makes one into a taker dependent on the enabling actions of others rather than a generous giver.
9. The excessive behavior is masked and hidden by deceit and dishonesty.

Even things like hunting and fishing can be sin in excess if pursued to excess according to the above criteria.

As far as I can recall, the Bible only warns specifically about excessive drinking, eating, and idleness as sins. But the lack of self-control, lack of care for others, selfishness, and self-harm are sins that often accompany excessive behaviors.

The above principles are probably useful far beyond "How do I know if I'm eating/drinking/smoking too much?" 

The medical literature documents some risks of chewing tobacco, but it does not seem nearly as dangerous as smoking or gluttony, and not as deadly as drinking alcohol.  Unlike most other vices of excess, I don't have much personal experience with folks wrestling with chewing tobacco.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 23, 2020)

Is constantly looking for sin in your fellow man a sin?


----------



## Danuwoa (Jan 23, 2020)

NCHillbilly said:


> Is constantly looking for sin in your fellow man a sin?


I don’t know how you got that from what he posted.


----------



## CurLee (Jan 23, 2020)

The first paragraph, maybe?


----------



## Danuwoa (Jan 23, 2020)

CurLee said:


> The first paragraph, maybe?


Being surprised equals constantly looking for sin in others?


----------



## CurLee (Jan 24, 2020)

Thats the first sentence. There are two sentences in the first paragraph.


----------



## Israel (Jan 24, 2020)

We could, if pressed to the strictest measure with one another, cut to the chase:
"that which is not of faith is sin". At least so far as what might be called "New Testament Biblical Definition".

And I suppose if one wanted to take any stand upon anything else Paul has said, it would only be hypocritical to embrace some of his many sayings...and either reject this one...or even think it requires a special handling.

Whatever in the "all things" Paul meant in "all things are lawful to me" we might discuss...but I don't think the principle of "but not all things are expedient"...would need as much exploration. It appears as a principle that even the most unbelieving worldling might recognize and assent to, even if not convinced of sin, or any spiritual matter pertaining to it.

"Yep, there's stuff I do _sometimes_ that really is not beneficial" even if he were loathe to admit it to others. But, even if unrecognized in themselves he'd still probably be able to find in regard to some_ morality_ that everyone falls short at some point or another in what might be constituted as "living and doing always" what alone is to benefit. That seems almost silly to say when I see the din raised from almost every quarter of complaints against all "the others" that _do not do right_. And, pointing that out...might even be my form of indulgence.

If we do admit this...that regardless of how _we see ourselves_, that man is very inclined to judge according to some morality, even_ if not himself, _he appears more than capable of believing he knows what others should be doing (and not doing)...and their falling short of it. 

The man with his hand in the cookie jar may not be convinced enough to remove his own...but he is very very willing to decry the crowding when he discovers another's in there with his. 

But, enough about me.

The question is "are we to be more lawyerly" than the world? Or, not only "are we to be"...but, are we? Who would argue that _there is not_ a keenness, a sensitivity developed to the goodness and evilness of things, a sense of motives discerned, and for the discerning in seeking to follow Jesus Christ? 

Who hasn't felt (I ask as sincerely as I know) that at times they seem a man stripped of skin, flayed...and immersed in place of such malignant evil that they squirm before God and man, like a worm dipped in acid? Screaming for one sniff of cool and unpolluted air.

And that the beholding of what seems all inured to this...men as they go about oblivious...still chasing not only vain baubles, but malignant devices...adds only all the more to this vexation? Who has not asked for _duct tape_ to keep their own heads intact? But perhaps the better question might then be...who has not then seen their own "part in this"?

If we accept "that which is not of faith is sin", do we not accept the strictest, most fundamental, beyond mere appearance of any and all being and/or activity, the very deepest judgment of all matters? (here a fool will understand "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees") For it is not the one who claims the most refined senses of judgment, but the _one who is compelled to submit to them_, learning he cannot escape, that might find relief.
The lawyer himself...now finds himself in desperate need of an advocate. This cannot come except it be revealed. That such a one...an advocate...might even be...for him.

Listen...how can we not, if so armed with what we think we know, confess as truth to one another, lift up (as we raise our Bibles high) as being under, and not only now ourselves...but for others...escape if we use "that which is not of faith is sin" as it might so easily lend itself...for judging our brothers? Are we more lawyerly? Are we to be, more lawyerly?

Let's cut to the chase. Do you peel that orange in faith? The time you waste in your clumsy approach is sin, (let me teach you!)...so you will have more time for prayer. Do you drink your coffee in faith...hunt, fish, dress too slowly...taking away time from being "out preaching the gospel"? What cannot be raised as "law" (as I had sought to make plain elsewhere) by which we might find a handiness to use "against" others...even of the faith? Do you "pray without ceasing"? Rejoice in all things? Are you grateful (how much gratitude is "enough"? could be another metric) to and for all things? Do you "do all things without grumbling"...ever? But you see where even these questions rightly leave me in the asking...for the _demand of righteousness _is turned then upon me to this asking by Another "do you, Israel"? Oh, dear! 

Anyone may "lay down the law"...but to whom is our call?

Oh yes the law has a work to do...even the very principle of it, even if we cannot recite the 613.

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 

Therefore, my brothers, you also died to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.


Law has _a law in it_, over it, woven through it unyielding and unbreakable...except by death. It does not recognize uniforms or garb though the world would seek to teach otherwise...that to ourselves it is malleable. God sees how both the cop and judge drive, even as one brings a speeding offender into court to be judged. It is as absolute and unforgiving upon the confessing christian as it is the most seemingly depraved "other" when handled to anything but its righteous end. The killing of what by use of it, shows it is wed to it.

Mercy has triumphed over judgment.


----------



## Cmp1 (Jan 24, 2020)

Isn't your body supposed to be a temple?

I smoke,unfortunately,,,,and definitely like my brewskis,,,,


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 24, 2020)

Israel said:


> The question is "are we to be more lawyerly" than the world?



I don't have a big problem with being more lawyerly than the world in defense of Christian liberty when brothers and sisters in Christ are under unjustified attack.  

I guess the issue with being lawyerly often comes down to whether one is the accuser or the defense lawyer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2020)

NCHillbilly said:


> Is constantly looking for sin in your fellow man a sin?



BOOM!!!!  Dang!  Well if you don't know the Judge, you dang well better know the law, but in all honesty, based on his thread titles I don't get he's looking "for sin" per se as much as he is looking "to sin", but that's JMHO.


----------



## Danuwoa (Jan 24, 2020)

CurLee said:


> Thats the first sentence. There are two sentences in the first paragraph.


Ok.  What about that second sentence bothers you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2020)

One is just as mistaken in stating "Anything taken to excess can be a sin." , as one is in stating the assumed counter point, "Moderation in anything is not sinful."  Can love, forgiveness, kindness, humility if taken to excess ever be anything other than Godly.  Likewise, can adultery, fornication, gossip, pride, selfishness, or deceit in "moderation" be "OK"?  We ponder the split hairs right on up to the time of our self- destruction, never developing a relationship with the Author.  

Common sense would tell a man, any man, that if he wished to know the answer to a question in a book he would go to the Author, yet we don't.  Why?  Because we don't want THE answer.  We like our interpretation better than what we think He may tell us.  Just remember Christ will say "Depart from me.  I never knew you." not "Depart from me.  You never knew the Book."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The above principles are probably useful far beyond "How do I know if I'm eating/drinking/smoking too much?"



I think some of OUR points could best be summed up this way, to underscore your above statement; You appear to be stuck on exploring principles instead of seeking the Principal.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 24, 2020)

It is up to us to question and ask God if what we are doing is sin. Not for us to ask another person if what we are doing or what we have did is a sin.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 24, 2020)

NCHillbilly said:


> Is constantly looking for sin in your fellow man a sin?



There you go.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 24, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> One is just as mistaken in stating "Anything taken to excess can be a sin." , as one is in stating the assumed counter point, "Moderation in anything is not sinful."  Can love, forgiveness, kindness, humility if taken to excess ever be anything other than Godly.  Likewise, can adultery, fornication, gossip, pride, selfishness, or deceit in "moderation" be "OK"?  We ponder the split hairs right on up to the time of our self- destruction, never developing a relationship with the Author.
> 
> Common sense would tell a man, any man, that if he wished to know the answer to a question in a book he would go to the Author, yet we don't.  Why?  Because we don't want THE answer.  We like our interpretation better than what we think He may tell us.  Just remember Christ will say "Depart from me.  I never knew you." not "Depart from me.  You never knew the Book."



I especially like your point about self discernment of Scripture.


----------



## Danuwoa (Jan 24, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> One is just as mistaken in stating "Anything taken to excess can be a sin." , as one is in stating the assumed counter point, "Moderation in anything is not sinful."  Can love, forgiveness, kindness, humility if taken to excess ever be anything other than Godly.  Likewise, can adultery, fornication, gossip, pride, selfishness, or deceit in "moderation" be "OK"?  We ponder the split hairs right on up to the time of our self- destruction, never developing a relationship with the Author.
> 
> Common sense would tell a man, any man, that if he wished to know the answer to a question in a book he would go to the Author, yet we don't.  Why?  Because we don't want THE answer.  We like our interpretation better than what we think He may tell us.  Just remember Christ will say "Depart from me.  I never knew you." not "Depart from me.  You never knew the Book."


“We like our interpretation better.”  This is definitely true. There are a whole lot of folks trying to turn it into something that works for them rather than what it actually is.


----------



## Israel (Jan 24, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I don't have a big problem with being more lawyerly than the world in defense of Christian liberty when brothers and sisters in Christ are under unjustified attack.
> 
> I guess the issue with being lawyerly often comes down to whether one is the accuser or the defense lawyer.



Is someone suffering under unjust accusation for chewing tobacco?

Or for not chewing tobacco?

(I suppose it could depend upon how far back "up in the holler" one finds themselves.)

As to what "well known" may hold as pertaining to this, I can only understand in the context that some may still regard that as significant.

Among what is often seen as "christianity" there runs a whole gamut of who, or what is well known. Sports stars. Recording artists of christian music. Actors. Or even to a well known country singer who claims Christ that might have a penchant for chewing tobacco.

But it also runs to those well known as multi published spiritual gurus. Mega church pastors. TV evangelists. Sitting over _some "well known" ministry._

From some I might not as readily expect an understanding of liberty in Christ. For those making any claim (and/or living...$$$$) at believing themselves teachers of the faith, they should (is should a right word?) know that with that comes a stricter judgment...and a "being observed" for their manner of life that is inherent in such position.

As to being surprised what men do..."christian" (even leaders) or otherwise (staunchest and loudest atheist)...well... I can't deny we may be...but maybe I am just too old to be much surprised anymore...by what men do.

(I've shocked myself quite a bit with a stupidity I was quite sure at the age of 20 was well behind me and outgrown...and even yet again in my 60's)

Man, does grace trump everything!


----------



## Jeff Raines (Jan 24, 2020)

I don't chew it,just sits in my bottom lip.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 25, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> BOOM!!!!  Dang!  Well if you don't know the Judge, you dang well better know the law, but in all honesty, based on his thread titles I don't get he's looking "for sin" per se as much as he is looking "to sin", but that's JMHO.



Scripture says that the law is the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.  Without a conviction of sin, I doubt anyone ever comes to know Jesus. And once one comes to know Jesus, if they love him, they will obey his commands. (John 14) 



j_seph said:


> It is up to us to question and ask God if what we are doing is sin. Not for us to ask another person if what we are doing or what we have did is a sin.



Aren't you a member of a church that requires members to abstain completely from alcohol and also agree not to sell it?  It seems like your church is pretty up in the business of their members.

My job from Scripture includes teaching folks to "obey everything [Jesus] commanded."  Knowing whether or not Jesus commanded something is an essential part of being a disciple and making disciples.  



Israel said:


> Is someone suffering under unjust accusation for chewing tobacco?



The Christians I mentioned in the OP are definitely getting some negative feedback for chewing tobacco.  Unjust?  In the given context, that really depends on if the action is a sin.  (The fact of chewing tobacco is freely admitted by the Christians in question.)  If chewing tobacco is not a sin according to Scripture, then it is within the Christian liberty of those doing it.  If it is a sin according to Scripture, it is not within the reasonable exercise of Christian liberty.

There are many folks in American Christianity who assert that chewing tobacco is a sin.  You've probably heard the expression, "Don't smoke, don't chew, don't run with those who do."  The prohibition of all tobacco products is still found in the first four Christian university handbooks I consulted (Truett McConnell, Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian College, and Southeastern University.) 

Meanwhile, gluttony (which is a sin in Scripture), still gets a pass.  How many have nullified the Word of God (gluttony is a sin) for the sake of their tradition (tobacco is a sin)?


----------



## Israel (Jan 25, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The Christians I mentioned in the OP are definitely getting some negative feedback for chewing tobacco.  Unjust?  In the given context, that really depends on if the action is a sin.  (The fact of chewing tobacco is freely admitted by the Christians in question.)  If chewing tobacco is not a sin according to Scripture, then it is within the Christian liberty of those doing it.  If it is a sin according to Scripture, it is not within the reasonable exercise of Christian liberty.
> 
> There are many folks in American Christianity who assert that chewing tobacco is a sin.  You've probably heard the expression, "Don't smoke, don't chew, don't run with those who do."  The prohibition of all tobacco products is still found in the first four Christian university handbooks I consulted (Truett McConnell, Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian College, and Southeastern University.)
> 
> Meanwhile, gluttony (which is a sin in Scripture), still gets a pass.  How many have nullified the Word of God (gluttony is a sin) for the sake of their tradition (tobacco is a sin)?



Our ability to make a sin of anything when it is another doing it...well, that may be _almost_ inexhaustible. Thanks be to God for _almost._

For what is impossible with man is possible with God. And I really don't know why God (of whom I believe can do anything)...has such a hard time straightening all dem others out! But my facetiousness may not be fitting and another self indulgence for which I can expect the Lord's reproof and correction.

Jonah _who ran,_ sat on a hill in a miff for God's showing mercy to others who _at least_ did not know their right hand from their left. The one who knew the will of God for him and tried to dodge it was very upset at God's treatment of those who didn't even know.

We might ask..."why are we like that?" or inclined that way, but perhaps the better question is "why is God, or how is God, like that?" Still in communication and relationship (as with Jonah) to what knows _the better_, but knows absolutely nothing of itself. Of "the way it is". Of its own deportment in the light. And can still ungraciously hold to an anger at sight of the very manifestation of the mercy of God. What odd things we are.

I think there may be great help found only when we find how incurably and absolutely given we are to a thing that bristles at God's kindness. Especially to others. I know this sounds a totally unfitting reflection for, or among, what considers itself christian and of Christ.

And I cannot explain how such utter hopelessness in light of our own untenable situation and condition (to change it) can result in hysterical joy...and even laughter. Maybe no possibility can be seen...till all impossibility with our own selves is made perfectly clear.

God always provides enough strength to every man to make it to his own death. For of all the things a man may discover he lacks strength for, no one is ever too weak to die.

A wonderful brother wrote this, and though I understand his wisdom and insight in it...I am no longer sure I can agree. I am as pressed to all who find any or every man suspect in the same measure to the One who always gets all my jokes.

How glorious is the wholesome laughter heard when asking Him as I seek to explain myself "do you know what I mean?"


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 25, 2020)

Abstaining from chewing tobacco may also be a sin.


----------



## Israel (Jan 25, 2020)

gemcgrew said:


> Abstaining from chewing tobacco may also be a sin.




LOL...yes! If the Lord directs..."go and chew"...but Lord...I have never touched anything unclean!


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 25, 2020)

Israel said:


> LOL...yes! If the Lord directs..."go and chew"...but Lord...I have never touched anything unclean!


It may also be a self appointed reference point, so that a man can think more highly of himself.

The greater emphasis is on the intent and not the action.

Having said that, sin is what God made it to be.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 25, 2020)

Cmp1 said:


> Isn't your body supposed to be a temple?


Not of your making. God will not dwell there.


----------



## Israel (Jan 25, 2020)

gemcgrew said:


> It may also be a self appointed reference point, so that a man can think more highly of himself.
> 
> The greater emphasis is on the intent and not the action.
> 
> Having said that, sin is what God made it to be.


yes, a conscience clear does not equal innocence.

For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 25, 2020)

Cmp1 said:


> Isn't your body supposed to be a temple?
> 
> I smoke,unfortunately,,,,and definitely like my brewskis,,,,



Yes, the body of a Christian is a temple of the Holy Spirit, according to Scripture.  And this verse is often misapplied to support claims that drinking, smoking, tattoos, chewing tobacco, etc. are sinful.  But why stop there?  If the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, isn't any harm to one's body a sin against the body and thus a sin against the temple of the Holy Spirit?  

No.  Let's look at the Scripture in context to identify the twisting of Scripture apparent in the claim that since the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, smoking, drinking, and chewing tobacco are sinful:

1 Corinthians 6  15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 


So Scripture says that the only sin against the body (thus the temple of the Holy Spirit) is sexual immorality.  All other sins are outside the body.  This means:

- Smoking (if it is a sin, for example in excess) is a sin outside the body.
- Drinking (if it is a sin, for example in excess) is a sin outside the body.
- Chewing tobacco (if it is a sin, for example in excess) is a sin outside the body.
- Tattoos (if they are a sin, for example an idol) is a sin outside the body.

If someone claims something other than sexual immorality is a sin against the body (as the temple of the Holy Spirit) they are actually demonstrating unbelief of the same passage they are twisting to support their point.


----------



## j_seph (Jan 25, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Aren't you a member of a church that requires members to abstain completely from alcohol and also agree not to sell it?  It seems like your church is pretty up in the business of their members.


We have a church covenant yes, it says something similar to that but worded a little better lol. A church covenant is similar to say a loan agreement. This is what the church stands on. What is expected of members. By joining the church (signing a loan agreement) you agree to obey by this. It is not a decision forced upon you or in the business of their members. See you have to agree to this yourself, church doesn't ask you from time to time are ya doing these things. Neither does it state that it is a sin nor does anyone their tell you that it is a sin. If ya don't agree to not do it then you just don't join. I'd imagine there are some out there that agree but do not abide in it, I mean they are several folks who promise God and break the promise by sunset.


----------



## Cmp1 (Jan 26, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Yes, the body of a Christian is a temple of the Holy Spirit, according to Scripture.  And this verse is often misapplied to support claims that drinking, smoking, tattoos, chewing tobacco, etc. are sinful.  But why stop there?  If the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, isn't any harm to one's body a sin against the body and thus a sin against the temple of the Holy Spirit?
> 
> No.  Let's look at the Scripture in context to identify the twisting of Scripture apparent in the claim that since the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, smoking, drinking, and chewing tobacco are sinful:
> 
> ...


Thanks,,,,


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> My job from Scripture includes teaching folks to "obey everything [Jesus] commanded."



Personally I shutter to think my, or anyone else’s children being spiritually instructed by someone as misguided as you.  That’s why it’s imperative that we as parents teach and model OUR RELATIONSHIP with Christ to our children lest they grow up equating belief with 4 billion people’s different interpretation of scripture which is absolutely worthless in and of itself.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 26, 2020)

Some of the finest old true Christian ladies I ever knew when I was growing up usually had a little snuff juice on their chin. If they didn't make it to heaven; then me, you, or the vast majority of finger-pointing "Christian" hypocrites sure ain't gonna get there. I think this world needs more people who mind their own business and quit worrying about what "sinful" things everybody else is doing. Seems like a sin is defined by many as something they don't personally like or do.


----------



## Israel (Jan 26, 2020)

gemcgrew said:


> Abstaining from chewing tobacco may also be a sin.






gemcgrew said:


> It may also be a self appointed reference point, so that a man can think more highly of himself.
> 
> The greater emphasis is on the intent and not the action.
> 
> Having said that, sin is what God made it to be.




Peter's rooftop vision, was it as he (to me) seemed to imply, the disabusing him of any notion that it would be as equally sinful to visit a gentile in his home as to take food of an unclean animal? It seems Peter inferred as much from his vision.

What I find more interesting (and wonderful to wonder at) in your comment, that besides the fact that there is not found in the law such a prohibition to visit a gentile, the spirit is, by this vision, now telling him (a hungry man) to take and eat from what _is proscribed in the law_.

That Peter inferred it was "now OK" to visit a gentile (although not proscribed) nevertheless the spirit had revealed the disanulling of (at least) an entire realm of restrictions, at least as pertaining to food. There is, of course, a consideration that this could be in much broader application than just food.

Let us leave off the _prior instruction/command _at the ascension in what is called the great commission. Did Christ not already say:

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Peter perhaps, should not be faulted for either a seeming forgetfulness or misunderstanding of that command requiring a "refreshing" of instruction. Or a deeper motivation to it.  (For I too have benefited too greatly by a grace that reminds me of things once spoken.) I have no position except to recognize my own such need and benefit of grace. But, it is there. Just as anyone "reading my life" would find...no less. A need to be further instructed, reminded, or indeed rebuked!...in what may once have been confessed to _my satisfaction _as "message received".

Likewise I too well recognize that thing of "reference point" for self approval. The  "I do this but not that" Or "I do not do this..." (But maybe I lie...I may not recognize it at all! Especially to myself!) Ha Ha!

"Of course I don't feel superior to my brothers...I just pray God deliver them from _their blindness!_" (And tell them so...LOL..."I'll pray you "get it"!) Or I won't...not mattering.

O! wretched man that I am!...who...?

God's MO is way too clever for a clever man. O! the relief of simplicity.

How the clever are caught in their own cleverness!

The man who finds sin in his brother or believes he does to an expression of accusation...believing his own discernment is such as to merit such exposure is, in essence saying (help me here!) "I have examined the sacrifice made, and thoroughly, indeed so thoroughly, to find no covering for your doing or being (after whatever manner) except to identify your doing, or being, as sin" It is "not covered in the sacrifice".

But here might a clever man be tricked, if not "eating all the lamb". For, in the Lamb is there not provision to "go to your brother privately and speak to him of what you see as error and/or sin?" Or pray for him if seeing one committing a sin "not to the death".

Where is the greater presumption? Is it in the one who, by some action or pursuit, is declared to be "in sin"...or is it in the one who, by such declaration (apart perhaps from following the Lord's instruction) claims to have the light to declare it so...but manifestly denies the instruction found _in the sacrifice?_

So your declaration is all the more reproving of me to (I trust) a better seeing of "the Sacrifice" by:



> The greater emphasis is on the intent and not the action.



For there is something that the Lord knows is dealt with...even must be by going privately to another...that is sought to be avoided by a circumvention, and thus manifest denial...of "eating all the Lamb".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2020)

Big7 said:


> I especially like your point about self discernment of Scripture.



It's not something I'm proud of, but like I said I can speak to it personally.  I've made ALL the mistakes.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 27, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That’s why it’s imperative that we as parents teach and model OUR RELATIONSHIP with Christ to our children lest they grow up equating belief with 4 billion people’s different interpretation of scripture which is absolutely worthless in and of itself.



Of course, we model our relationship.  But I've seen too many bad models claiming relationship with Christ while bearing tons of bad fruit in their lives.  How does an observer determine whether one's purported relationship with Christ is real and healthy other than by comparing the fruit of their lives with Scripture?

Communication is at the heart of any real relationship with Christ.  Worship and prayer are a believer's primary ways of sharing their heart and mind with God the Father.  Scripture is God the Father's primary way of sharing his heart and mind with his children.  People who claim to be hearing from God but neglect Scripture end up on many strange paths indeed.  

Fellowship with God also entails efforts toward obedience by his children.  But purported children who base their "obedience" on their feelings without regard for Scripture often drift far from anything like Biblical Christianity.

If one has tunnel vision and only considers my threads like "Is this sin?" or "Is that Biblical" I can see how one might get the impression of imbalance regarding rigidly adhering to Scripture and a real and living relationship with God the Father.  But that would also require ignoring my testimonies, my music, my teachings on worship, my sermons, and my how to videos.  My own children also got to see my trials, my persecutions, my prayers, my struggles, and God bringing victory in my life and theirs over and over again.  

If you've watched my sermons, you'd know that I don't ask the audience to take my word for it regarding interpretations of Scripture, but that I commend the Scripture to them and encourage them to search Scripture for themselves, as the Bereans did in Acts.  My approach to discussion threads is similar.  It's not "my interpretation" but an opportunity for all participants to to search the Scriptures to support their positions, or to change their positions to bring them in line with Scripture.  Is this not how Jesus and the Apostles did their work?  Is this not how the prophets did their work?



SemperFiDawg said:


> Personally I shutter to think my, or anyone else’s children being spiritually instructed by someone as misguided as you.



Aren't your children adults?  I don't worry about my adult children's instructors, because they learned to test things against Scripture and have solid relationships with God.  If parents do their jobs, they shouldn't have much to "shutter" about once their children are adults.

As Scripture says,

4 “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one. 5 You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2020)

I understand what Drummer is seeking. It's that balance of faith and obedience. Fruit and Grace. Grace without works, etc.

Their are actual passages in Scripture that say we must have obedience, even with faith. That Christians will be known by the fruit of their actions. Some believe the fruit is the proof that it's the Holy Spirit working in you. So if you are producing fruit, it's not you but the Holy Spirit.

I've tried over the years to find these answers as well. I have never succeeded. Also if the Law has been tattooed on our heart, do we really need Scripture to show us the Law? Wasn't the Law just to show us the path to the Light? It's a great big Catch 22. A Religious Rollercoaster, never knowing where one is. It doesn't produce assurance or freedom but feels like a yoke.

I still haven't found what I'm looking for.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2020)

Drummer, if you want everyone on your side ask "Is Homosexuality a Sin?" Suddenly actions and fruits and proof of the Holy Spirit will have the truth you are seeking from the others.
Not drunkardess or gluttonly or lust. You are just being silly but homosexuality, now that one we can all agree on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2020)

> Aren't your children adults?



No.  Actually some of them aren't, but adults too, can be misled like children by misguided teachers.  And I'll be quiet honest with you, judging by your comments and thread topics on here, I wouldn't trust you with either, and have serious reservations about any church's vetting process that does or would.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Drummer, if you want everyone on your side ask "Is Homosexuality a Sin?" Suddenly actions and fruits and proof of the Holy Spirit will have the truth you are seeking from the others.
> Not drunkardess or gluttonly or lust. You are just being silly but homosexuality, now that one we can all agree on.



I like humor on a Monday Art.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2020)

> Scripture is God the Father's primary way of sharing his heart and mind with his children.



No.  No it's not, and that statement alone is enough to convince me you are as lost as a person can be.  It is a cardinal sign of an abstract belief in God.  God is a person and just like a person he speaks to our heart/spirit.  THAT is his primary way of communicating with us; personally, on a personal level.  The scriptures may lead you to God, they may tell you about God, and they may certainly enrich your spirit, but they DO NOT in any way, form, or fashion substitute for a relationship with God.

God is a person in every aspect and the scriptures no more substitute for a relationship with him than reading your wife's diaries substitutes for a relationship with her.  The fact that THAT has to be pointed out to you is proof positive you are misguided and badly misguided at that.  I've been there.  I know.


----------



## Israel (Jan 27, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> I understand what Drummer is seeking. It's that balance of faith and obedience. Fruit and Grace. Grace without works, etc.
> 
> Their are actual passages in Scripture that say we must have obedience, even with faith. That Christians will be known by the fruit of their actions. Some believe the fruit is the proof that it's the Holy Spirit working in you. So if you are producing fruit, it's not you but the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...


I hear you.

.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 27, 2020)

I guess it depends on that to which you are yoked.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jan 27, 2020)

Some people sure worry a lot about stuff.

If God wants to cast me into Hades for dipping Red Seal after he done drowned the whole world, burned up whole cities with fire and brimstone, hardened a whole nation's hearts and then killed them in horrible ways for it, tortured Job and killed his whole family for trying to do what's right, demanded that a righteous man sacrifice his son to him, etc., etc., then you just bring it on, old Bearded Hypocrite in the Sky. I'm playing against a stacked deck, anyway. You made me who I am. And you aren't very righteous yourself.

I think God probably has better things to do than sit aroud spying on people seeing who's dipping snuff, who's drinking a cold beer, who's dancing, who's listening to rock and roll, and suchlike. If he worries about stuff like that , I don't have much respect for him if he created and designed us and our natures.


----------



## Browniez (Jan 27, 2020)

If you leave the world a better place than you found it, loved and had faith to your wife, and gave your kids all of yourself...

I have a hard time God is holding a can of Cope against you.

If people spent as much as much effort searching for (and addressing) their own flaws as they do the flaws of others, perhaps we would make progress in this world.


----------



## 4HAND (Jan 27, 2020)

I am a God fearing man. I really try to be a good husband & father. Pretty sure I'm successful at that. Very involved in our church. I am a Christian & strive to do what's right.

I dip snuff. I would like to quit, but haven't yet. I am not a hypocrite. I don't hide it.
I don't think that will keep me out of heaven any more than a Christian struggling with hate, gossip, gluttony, lust, etc.

There are outward things folks do that are easily noticed. There are many more inward things folks do that go unnoticed. 

Thankfully it's by God's Grace we are saved. Not works. It it were by works Heaven would be empty.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Jan 27, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> There are many folks in American Christianity who assert that chewing tobacco is a sin.  You've probably heard the expression, "Don't smoke, don't chew, don't run with those who do."




Those good ol hypocrite, holier than thou Christians with those beliefs have skeletons in their closets. Problem is, it’s usually 100 times worse than a guy chewing tobacco or smoking. It’s mental issues related to extreme trauma. Sucks to be that dude.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2020)

Browning Slayer said:


> Problem is, .....



There's a story that the London Times once sent an inquiry to notable authors of that day asking them to elaborate on the topic "The problem with the world today...."  It is reported that G. K. Chesterton sent back a terse, but accurate reply that read.

"Dear Sirs. 

With regards to your question, 'What's wrong with the world today?'  I am.

Sincerely
G.K. Chesterton"

That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 27, 2020)

South GA Dawg said:


> “We like our interpretation better.”  This is definitely true. There are a whole lot of folks trying to turn it into something that works for them rather than what it actually is.



Scripture is not for self interpretation.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 28, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> I understand what Drummer is seeking. It's that balance of faith and obedience. Fruit and Grace. Grace without works, etc.
> 
> Their are actual passages in Scripture that say we must have obedience, even with faith. That Christians will be known by the fruit of their actions. Some believe the fruit is the proof that it's the Holy Spirit working in you. So if you are producing fruit, it's not you but the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...



Why equate all of Scripture with the Law?  Why assume that Scripture is not a part of the process by which God writes the his commands on the hearts of his children?  The Law of Moses is fulfilled.  But Scripture contains many precious promises not even found in the Law.  If you believe the Bible, you know that it is through Scripture that Christ washes his people.  (Ephesians 5:26)  You also know the foolishness of pretending Scripture is like a human diary - which is a powerless private record.  In contrast, Scripture is "living and active" and has the power to bring about both its promises and its requirements in the lives of God's children.  It is not separate from the voice of the Holy Spirit - it confirms the voice of the Holy Spirit and the voice of the Holy Spirit confirms Scripture.

But we must remember that "no man can serve two masters" and that "the head of every man is Christ."  We must also remember that Christ's "yoke is easy and his burden light."  The commands of Christ that disciples are to obey is a lighter yoke than the common alternatives.  The commands of Christ are a lighter yoke than the yoke of sin, the yoke of the law, and the yoke of Pharisaical bullies who add commands of their own invention from the "traditions."

How many new believers are saddled with traditional rules that are absent from Christ's actual instructions in Scripture?  Don't smoke, don't chew, don't run with those who do.  Don't drink.  Don't dance.  Other than Scripture, how do we know that these are not Christ's yoke when so many churches and "Christians" are saying they are?  Scripture says, "Let no one judge you by what you eat or drink."  Pharisaical bullies use guilt and manipulation to put a heavier yoke on men's shoulders.  What about other yokes?  Tithing and church attendance are not demanded by New Testament instructions.  Sure, the Holy Spirit may move in the hearts of individual believers, but it is an unbiblical yoke to make these litmus tests for spirituality.

Christ died to set us free: from sin, from the Law, and from Pharisaical bullies who try and impose a heavier yoke.  Scripture is a powerful gift that believers can use to distinguish God's voice and Christ's true yoke from all the other voices and all the heavier yokes.  Of course, Christ died to free the Pharisaical bullies also - if only they would accept his free gift and stop trying to impose their foolish rules on others.

Sure, some may have a testimony of deliverance from alcoholism, and the Holy Spirit may have instructed them not to drink.  OK.  But it's a legalism to attempt to apply this instruction to others.  The Holy Spirit has given me many disciplines over the years.  I remember throwing away all my secular rock albums.  But I would be wrong to make this a rule for others.  For most of my adult life, I haven't had a TV.  Not drinking alcohol is a ministry discipline for some believers, not a rule for all.  (Just as refraining from meat is a ministry discipline for some.)

I don't have a conflict between grace and obedience.  Through God's grace and Christ's sacrifice, my heart has been purchased for God.  I am not my own.  I was bought at a price.  The conflict is between my flesh and obedience.  But "God's grace teaches us to say No! to ungodliness and worldly passions."  Obedience earns nothing.  It is simply my response to the greatest gift I could ever receive.

But what do I obey?  Lots of men have tried to boss me around.  But since no man can serve two masters, I make every effort to be discern Christ's voice from the imitations.  That would be much harder without the gift of Scripture.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 28, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Why equate all of Scripture with the Law?  Why assume that Scripture is not a part of the process by which God writes the his commands on the hearts of his children?  The Law of Moses is fulfilled.  But Scripture contains many precious promises not even found in the Law.  If you believe the Bible, you know that it is through Scripture that Christ washes his people.  (Ephesians 5:26)  You also know the foolishness of pretending Scripture is like a human diary - which is a powerless private record.  In contrast, Scripture is "living and active" and has the power to bring about both its promises and its requirements in the lives of God's children.  It is not separate from the voice of the Holy Spirit - it confirms the voice of the Holy Spirit and the voice of the Holy Spirit confirms Scripture.
> 
> But we must remember that "no man can serve two masters" and that "the head of every man is Christ."  We must also remember that Christ's "yoke is easy and his burden light."  The commands of Christ that disciples are to obey is a lighter yoke than the common alternatives.  The commands of Christ are a lighter yoke than the yoke of sin, the yoke of the law, and the yoke of Pharisaical bullies who add commands of their own invention from the "traditions."
> 
> ...


In keeping with obedience, in what way has Christ made your yoke lighter? Granted you still have one, exactly in what real ways has having Christ made it easier to be obedient to God?

I guess I'm asking, are the obedience requirements less and if not, does having Christ spirit help you overcome these requirements. Also do you see these obedience requirements as burdens?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 29, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> In keeping with obedience, in what way has Christ made your yoke lighter? Granted you still have one, exactly in what real ways has having Christ made it easier to be obedient to God?
> 
> I guess I'm asking, are the obedience requirements less and if not, does having Christ spirit help you overcome these requirements. Also do you see these obedience requirements as burdens?



I answer this questions in more detail in the other thread you started with a similar question:

https://forum.gon.com/threads/jesus-has-lifted-our-burdens.960045/page-2#post-12109706 

But the subset of that reply that is of most direct relation to the subject of human-imposed rules like "chewing tobacco is a sin" is:

Jesus removes the burden of being bossed around by religious authorities, since "the head of every man is Christ" and "no man can serve two masters." His rebuke is ongoing for those who would place or accept a religious yoke of human authority -

a) Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a *yoke* on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10)
b) For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a *yoke* of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
c) So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 14:16-17)
d) And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. (Luke 11:46)
e) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. (Acts 15:28-29)
f) Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke? (Isaiah 58:6)


----------



## welderguy (Jan 29, 2020)

In this matter of sin, it's not what you do, but rather who you are.  More specifically, who you've been made to be.

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
(Luke 16:10)


----------



## Israel (Jan 29, 2020)

Art, I find myself a very odd creature to myself.

And although I can see where that sounds like an argument against any or all peace or comfort of home; that reality of living with the odd a seeming presentation of all challenge or stress, of a seeming unsettlement, nevertheless it is always to the better.

I daresay it is only Christ who has made, and makes this known to me. I will not regale you with all the mayhem that ensued from a man like me, thinking he knew himself. Thinking he knew himself so well in every situation as to even predict and assure, (first to himself, and then to others) how he is, and how he will be.

You can see the folly of a bankrupt man issuing endless promissory notes, no? Even to himself. Actually always first to himself, thinking he enriched himself, and in such beguiling of that false economy...issuing them to others. I am this...and I will be this...I was "bankable". Like I said...what need to recount where such false accounting must lead?

Rightly to many in the faith, especially those strong in Christ, this is just so much beating of a dead horse. But I am weak, and though needy of those stronger, I also cannot deny I can relate (unless I seek to present myself a liar) to what shows itself in weakness.

And though I believe consistency to be a great strength, I see I was very weakest when I most presumed it to myself, not even able to imagine any other might possess it to my measure. I so easily saw every trip and fall as others were made aware they were not as (I believed) they thought themselves to be. But me? No, there was no situation I didn't consider myself equipped to. To myself I knew no limit unable to be either purchased or accomplished by issue of promise to myself.

To say this persisted even after confession of Jesus Christ, I cannot lay to His doing. I was not (and do not consider now myself) as fully aware of all that is in the truth of this confession...Jesus Christ is Lord. The significance of His singularity was not perceived to much measure, at all, in the assigning of _absolute limit _to all that is else to Him.

But I do believe that I can say with some assurance that the man enters an arena heretofore totally unknown to him in that confession. He may not know (as I have not known) just how deeply he is declaring his abdication of a place so deeply lusted for and coveted, that until that is being made known to him, he will continue thus. Claw must be turned to open hand.

And it matters not, in the all, to what measure a man accounts his own sincerity as deeply as he may plumb it, for here nothing can either add, nor detract. He may learn it is all of grace to his receiving, _being allowed_ to agree with what is already settled in Heaven.

And it might appear the above is the most miserable confession, the most rancid of testimonies. The weakest (if at all) testimony of Jesus Christ imaginable. No one need receive it, may they find better. I have little care if all one sees is a reed blown to and fro, having so little root in himself...so little consistency.

I can testify of a grace found here, that even if it be of no consequence or benefit to any other...I find it has been O! so lovingly placed, recorded, declared...for one such as me. Even if only for one. Even if only...for me.

A dear one knew what would need comfort, what would so easily disqualify itself otherwise, what could not, in longing for a consistency, and not finding it in himself...would be then crushed by utter despairing in all hopelessness.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, _is_ therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Someone saw what was happening to me...someone saw what would happen in a man such as me, and someone wrote for my comfort and encouragement (even though it be strong reproof) seeing what danger to the soul as to a tipping might occur if one were not warned sternly, that the vexation, the perfect frustration (even) of yet encountering such inconsistency (as sin is totally inconsistent to Christ) is not _inconsistent itself_...to seeking to know Him.

There are no "mental gymnastics" that can establish the soul here. And I am not persuaded the man who wrote it wrote it as a from of "automatic writing", as though a pen were placed in his hand and he, merely thoughtless and mindless as though with eyes closed he scribed, and then opened his eyes to see what he had written.

No, I believe a man discovered in himself a provocation of such doubts, even such contradictions, even such things as would be called (to himself) sin in a measure so previously unknown, and of such depth as never appreciated...as not caused by Christ...but being flushed out of hiding, (so to speak) by that light he had received in allowance of his agreement.

And he was moved in all grace to set this down...even as a sort of confession (if one can receive that) that this thing taking place...of all seeming unpleasantness within, the recognition of which otherwise could cause despair...wrote. Even if it only be...to me.

It is "not the light's fault"...it is the light's...work. And though that period of its discovery and exposure is more unpleasant (than even perhaps the man has ever known in frustration) do not lose heart! The allowance for patience to have her perfect work is not without reward. And such a man wrote to another...not that the man would sense disqualification by what seems the most inconsistent discovery, or even an embarrassing admission, for the shame of sin is consumed by the very light that is at work to its exposing...as powerless over the man.

I am not ashamed to admit I am weakest of all, having seen such faithfulness demonstrated by Christ in times and matters past...as to even yet sometimes find himself assailed by such questions (and yes, even in the fears of doubt) that to himself he often appears bizarre. And I do appreciate those who have attained a greater steadfastness, show a better consistency, as those who give such a man hope. A man who needs...reminding.

How a thing that so often thinks that both itself (and others) should "know better"...really doesn't at all. How a man who might see lightning fall one day upon all that opposes...and the next find himself quivering in need of such great reminder of God's faithfulness...seems very odd.

But, a man might settle in such a place, learning to lean a bit more than he ever imagined he might...upon another. Trust someone...more than he trusts himself. It is very "odd" to him, this working that he once thought he saw _all of,_ but _in now_ he finds a welcome exchange. 

Appear odd to himself that Christ appear normal. 

Such is a very minor discomfort to be endured, lest he fall_ into the opposite._


----------



## Madman (Jan 29, 2020)

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.  

Jesus must be catholic.


----------



## Madman (Jan 29, 2020)

Big7 said:


> Scripture is not for self interpretation.


I believe your point was missed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 29, 2020)

If scripture is not for self interpretation, who is it given to for interpretation? Why should we even read it? Just let those old men of yore tell us what it said.

Maybe it's not for self interpretation but for Holy Spirit revelation/interpretation.


----------



## Madman (Jan 29, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> If scripture is not for self interpretation, who is it given to for interpretation? Why should we even read it? Just let those old men of yore tell us what it said.


The Church


----------



## Israel (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> The Church



yes, the Church...inclusive of a man who might write this:

"...and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 7:40


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

The church has final say.  Matthew 18:17


----------



## Israel (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> The church has final say.  Matthew 18:17


Isn't the Church all who are brought to acknowledge God alone through Christ has had the final say?


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

Israel said:


> yes, the Church...inclusive of a man who might write this:
> 
> "...and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 7:40


Paul was an Apostle of the Lord and yet still only a member of the body, he was not the church.  We see in Acts the Jerusalem Council making decisions as a body.  Let's not think that as individuals we make up the church.


----------



## Israel (Jan 30, 2020)

But even councils are not "all of the church"..."it _seemed _good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." And the Lord knows how much may appear as otherwise_ seems..._

But nevertheless, if it be that this is in all true...that there be "no other requirement"

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than _these necessary things;_

At what point, if the scripture cannot be broken, is it then later granted to add anything to the _only necessary?_

Do you think, might you appreciate that a man's confusion is only further exacerbated to his confounding if being told, (by some entity _calling itself_ the Church) upon one day in time his eating of meat on a certain day has placed his soul in _mortal peril_...but on some later day he is now given the all clear?

Is submission _to the Church_...or _in the Church_, being comprised of what is submitted to Christ?

Does this scripture:

*Whose* soever *sins ye remit*, they are *remitted unto them*; and *whose* soever *sins ye* retain, they are retained.

Contain anything in meaning that it is then given to any to then have authority _to manufacture a place of sin _where none exists? Or is it the complete obverse...an appeal for a merciful eye to be cast upon what has manifestly sinned?

If my conscience is not clear toward what would even assume to itself such authority, God knows. For God knows in times past...it was not.


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

Israel said:


> But even councils are not "all of the church"..."it _seemed _good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." And the Lord knows how much may appear as otherwise_ seems..._
> 
> But nevertheless, if it be that this is in all true...that there be "no other requirement"
> 
> ...





Israel said:


> But even councils are not "all of the church"..."it _seemed _good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." And the Lord knows how much may appear as otherwise_ seems..._





I would disagree as this discussion is on the decision of a topic which has most likely been decided by the church, or not decided on by the church, which means brothers are free to use free will based on other tenants of the faith.

We see time and time again the Apostles proclaiming proper actions based on the faith and historically the Bishops represent the church.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid..” St. Ignatious of Antioch to the Church at Smyrna








Israel said:


> For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than _these necessary things;_
> 
> At what point, if the scripture cannot be broken, is it then later granted to add anything to the _only necessary?_
> 
> Do you think, might you appreciate that a man's confusion is only further exacerbated to his confounding if being told, (by some entity _calling itself_ the Church) upon one day in time his eating of meat on a certain day has placed his soul in _mortal peril_...but on some later day he is now given the all clear?




I am not certain of the introduction of this passage.  The council is saying the old testament, at least in the need for circumcision is no longer needed it has been overcome with the circumcision of the heart in Baptism



I see nowhere in any church canon that eating meat on a certain day is a mortal sin.  You will need to show me that one.






Israel said:


> Is submission _to the Church_...or _in the Church_, being comprised of what is submitted to Christ?


 It is submission to Christ.



Israel said:


> Does this scripture:
> 
> *Whose* soever *sins ye remit*, they are *remitted unto them*; and *whose* soever *sins ye* retain, they are retained.
> 
> Contain anything in meaning that it is then given to any to then have authority _to manufacture a place of sin _where none exists? Or is it the complete obverse...an appeal for a merciful eye to be cast upon what has manifestly sinned?


This passage means exactly what it says; Christ gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in his name.  If those sins are forgiven then they are forgiven, if they are not forgiven then they are retained.  If that passage is put in context we see Christ returning to the Apostles after his resurrection and breathing the Holy Spirit on them.


Is there a thread post on what the church is? If not maybe one could be started.


----------



## Israel (Jan 30, 2020)

I don't mean to make the whole meatless Fridays that were once _in force_ nor the present meatless Lenten Fridays/Ash Wednesday matter a central concern, there are ample other issues of observance  (Holy days of obligation, etc) that are tied to matters of sin _creatively._ At least in a certain entity declaring itself the Church.

Caring less about particulars, I am more inclined to consider the over arching matter of what appears a presumption to make sin of no thing that either the scripture mention, nor is given of the Lord in authority to any disciples. Which is more with what I believe is the tenor of the OP.

"Where did (does!) all this stuff come from?"

(In which I believe the OP might agree it is not just "certain" entities declaring themselves the Church that have gotten creative with sin) And the declaring and/or calling up of the law....tithing, etc.

What an almost hilarious matter...a gentile preacher, often preaching to predominantly gentile converts about tithing.

But perhaps it better calls for tears?


I do not know if Paul could be more persuasive in matter of law than his saying of this (which, if we believe his authority was not given in vain should sober us)

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> PLet's not think that as individuals we make up the church.



If the individual believers, as a body, don't make up the church, then what does?

The church is not a building, nor the leaders that are put into place over the local body.  Nor national leaders over denominations.  And it certainly isn't a man in a tall white hat sitting on his betonkus over in Italy


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> If the individual believers, as a body, don't make up the church, then what does?
> 
> The church is not a building, nor the leaders that are put into place over the local body.  Nor national leaders over denominations.  And it certainly isn't a man in a tall white hat sitting on his betonkus over in Italy


let me clarify.
I didnt mean the members dont make up the church I meant an individual alone is not the church.  Just as fingers toes etc. Make up a physical body so do individual Christian's make up the body of the church.

As to leadership over the church you may want to search Holy Scripture and see what it says.  You may want to see how the church operated for hundreds of years, beginning in the first century. 

You may want to understand how the church has operated and is operating for the last 2000+ years.  The Roman Catholics are not the only part of the church that has these beliefs.

The other option is to spend all your time sticking your nose in your neighbor's business telling him he is in sin for having a drink or a smoke or a chew of tobacco, and heaven forbid anyone dance.

Perhaps you should start a thread on what you believe about the church and why.  I'll be glad to jump in.

God's peace.


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

Israel said:


> I don't mean to make the whole meatless Fridays that were once _in force_ nor the present meatless Lenten Fridays/Ash Wednesday matter a central concern, there are ample other issues of observance  (Holy days of obligation, etc) that are tied to matters of sin _creatively._ At least in a certain entity declaring itself the church


Depriving oneself of flesh meat on Friday or fasting during the week is nothing more than self discipline.   The Roman Catholic Church has "days of obligation " on which their members are encouraged to attend Mass.  The Orthodox, the Coptic church, the Anglicans, all have variations, because the ancient church encouraged it.

I encourage people to study church history in the light of Holy Scripture.

"The more you know the Bible, the more catholic you become ".


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> let me clarify.
> I didnt mean the members dont make up the church I meant an individual alone is not the church.  Just as fingers toes etc. Make up a physical body so do individual Christian's make up the body of the church.
> 
> As to leadership over the church you may want to search Holy Scripture and see what it says.  You may want to see how the church operated for hundreds of years, beginning in the first century.
> ...



I don't see a need for another thread. We have discussed this before, and you and I will ever agree on this.  

If I believe that the church is not based in Rome, it doesn't make my only option to be the arbitrator of sinfulness to my neighbor.  It is not my place to tell my neighbor what is sin. The Bible clearly does so, and without a lot of gray areas.  

One thing for sure and certain about both of us.  We understand a lot more of the Bible than we practice.  Everyone does.


----------



## 4HAND (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> Depriving oneself of flesh meat on Friday or fasting during the week is nothing more than self discipline.   The Roman Catholic Church has "days of obligation " on which their members are encouraged to attend Mass.  The Orthodox, the Coptic church, the Anglicans, all have variations, because the ancient church encouraged it.
> 
> I encourage people to study church history in the light of Holy Scripture.
> 
> "The more you know the Bible, the more catholic you become ".


I don't mean to be disrespectful, but not everyone is catholic. I'm not.


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't see a need for another thread. We have discussed this before, and you and I will ever agree on this.
> 
> If I believe that the church is not based in Rome, it doesn't make my only option to be the arbitrator of sinfulness to my neighbor.  It is not my place to tell my neighbor what is sin. The Bible clearly does so, and without a lot of gray areas.
> 
> One thing for sure and certain about both of us.  We understand a lot more of the Bible than we practice.  Everyone does.


I agree.  The church is not based in Rome.  Now what?


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

4HAND said:


> I don't mean to be disrespectful, but not everyone is catholic. I'm not.


I agree. Ok.  I am catholic just not Roman.
Now what?  

Would it not be better if those who are not catholic better understood those who are?


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't see a need for another thread. We have discussed this before, and you and I will ever agree on this.
> 
> If I believe that the church is not based in Rome, it doesn't make my only option to be the arbitrator of sinfulness to my neighbor.  It is not my place to tell my neighbor what is sin. The Bible clearly does so, and without a lot of gray areas.
> 
> One thing for sure and certain about both of us.  We understand a lot more of the Bible than we practice.  Everyone does.


Lot of interesting stuff there, I'd like discuss that over the drink of your choice.


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

Israel said:


> But even councils are not "all of the church".


They were up until the 7th ecumenical council.


----------



## 4HAND (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> I agree. Ok.  I am catholic just not Roman.
> Now what?
> 
> Would it not be better if those who are not catholic better understood those who are?


Absolutely. The same goes for Catholics understanding protestants. But you said "the more you know the Bible, the more catholic you become".
That is not accurate.


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

4HAND said:


> Absolutely. The same goes for Catholics understanding protestants. But you said "the more you know the Bible, the more catholic you become".
> That is not accurate.


I am pretty well versed in protestantism.   Grab NE GA Pappy and let's all go out for drinks.  You would be amazed at what the Scriptures say on the matter.

There is thread been started for anyone with will to discuss.

I have have no illusion of conversion, just to discuss it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> I am pretty well versed in protestantism.   Grab NE GA Pappy and let's all go out for drinks.  You would be amazed at what the Scriptures say on the matter.
> 
> There is thread been started for anyone with will to discuss.
> 
> I have have no illusion of conversion, just to discuss it.



I doubt seriously that he is gonna drive up from Florida to discuss the catholic church


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I doubt seriously that he is gonna drive up from Florida to discuss the catholic church


Great!  I'll be in Florida all next week.


----------



## 4HAND (Jan 30, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I doubt seriously that he is gonna drive up from Florida to discuss the catholic church


????


----------



## 4HAND (Jan 30, 2020)

I wouldn't walk across the street for a drink, because I don't drink anymore. 
I have absolutely no problem with anyone that does though. I like diet coke.


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

4HAND said:


> I wouldn't walk across the street for a drink, because I don't drink anymore.
> I have absolutely no problem with anyone that does though. I like diet coke.


Diet coke is a drink my friend.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> Lot of interesting stuff there, I'd like discuss that over the drink of your choice.



ice water or unsweetened tea is all I drink anymore.  I usually have plenty of it in the fridge


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> ice water or unsweetened tea is all I drink anymore.  I usually have plenty of it in the fridge


I'm a "one cup of coffee and water, no ice, the rest of the day" myself kind of guy.
Glad to know the conversation will remain "sober".


----------



## 4HAND (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> I'm a "one cup of coffee and water, no ice, the rest of the day" myself kind of guy.
> Glad to know the conversation will remain "sober".


I assumed meeting for drinks was "meeting for alcoholic drinks". My bad. ?


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

4HAND said:


> I assumed meeting for drinks was "meeting for alcoholic drinks". My bad. ?


I should have said " iced tea and wings".  ?


----------



## 4HAND (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> I should have said " iced tea and wings".  ?


Maybe I shouldn't have assumed "alcoholic".


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jan 30, 2020)

wings?  did someone say wings?


----------



## Madman (Jan 30, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> wings?  did someone say wings?


We may not all know exactly what is meant by "drinks" but we sure know what is meant by "wings".  We are talking about chicken wings aren't we?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jan 30, 2020)

Madman said:


> We may not all know exactly what is meant by "drinks" but we sure k ow what is meant by "wings".  We are talking about chicken wings aren't we?



nah man... buffalo wings.  

and I didn't even know they could fly


----------



## Israel (Jan 31, 2020)

Madman said:


> Depriving oneself of flesh meat on Friday or fasting during the week is nothing more than self discipline.   The Roman Catholic Church has "days of obligation " on which their members are encouraged to attend Mass.  The Orthodox, the Coptic church, the Anglicans, all have variations, because the ancient church encouraged it.
> 
> I encourage people to study church history in the light of Holy Scripture.
> 
> "The more you know the Bible, the more catholic you become ".





> Depriving oneself of flesh meat on Friday or fasting during the week is nothing more than self discipline.



I would suggest otherwise. if the first sentence in the Code of Canon Law (dealing with fasts and abstentions) for this organization is believed.

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. 

And then goes on to prescribe:

In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can.  1251 Abstinence from eating meat or some other food according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops is to be observed on ,of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year of age. The law of fasting, however, binds all those who have attained their majority until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors of souls and parents are to take care that minors not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are also educated in a genuine sense of penance.

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

There _may be little_ issue at all in any club, organization, fraternity, group's right to self identify themselves, and in such identification prescribe their own rules for membership, or rules for remaining a consistent member in "good standing"; and to also impose penalties if and when such rules are not followed. Whether their list be long or short in requirements is of no consequence.

The believer _may learn_ though, of all these worldly self identifiers, there remains a something _not of this world _whose identity is all that is beyond self identification, but rather an identification given, gifted; neither of their own making nor of their own establishment. This gift of identifying the Lord Jesus...as _the Lord, _and in that being _made able _to identify _with_ the Lord. These few words do not begin to relate that glory. 

And they discover, sooner or later, there is also a jealousy _not of this world_, over that identity. _All jealousy_ in truth, over that identity. No less is that, that_ in that identity, _is the identifying that _He alone is given to recognize Himself_, and what proceeds from Himself. 

This matter of glory, of that which proceeds from Himself and over which such jealousy cannot be ever described as less than _in full force _holds the many "teachable moments" (as disciples _are taught_) each endures. Paul did not resolve to himself to die daily. He learned he was _assigned to it. _

There is a faithful husband/head that reproves _individually_, (as many as I love I rebuke and chasten) through His death for her, and by the revelation of _that death,_ that she, as to be made faithful bride, will experience. All that are under such "sentence of death" in themselves, quite individually...(and of such a personal nature in experience that is so far beyond any previous understanding of "personal")...are on their way to becoming _true persons. _

And each is learning such ministration (ministered _almost too personally) _is all that helps any see, they are both _not alone _(in truth) and as its ministration is accomplished in each...a part of what is called as His bride. 

Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 

This _almost too personal invasion _of this death being ministered, by its very nature of such exquisite and, (were it not for God) unbearable personal-ness...may become, even_ in time_, aware that this is accruing to their conviction of the resurrection, for such exquisite aim (yes, even call it attention) to themselves, and in themselves, they now _know _cannot be accomplished by _the dead. _And they are being disabused of any and all self identification. It is enough to know they appear...in _that eye._

But perhaps, here speaking too much of what _may appear mechanisms to some_, I would do more damage than benefit to continue.

Suffice it to say the ever living One is not of mechanism.








_



_


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jan 31, 2020)

welderguy said:


> In this matter of sin, it's not what you do, but rather who you are.  More specifically, who you've been made to be.
> 
> He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
> (Luke 16:10)



I can appreciate this perspective as a high level view, but Scripture gives enough imperatives to "stop sinning" and enough examples of discussions of what actions are and are not sinful for Christians that it a Biblical view of sin must also include what one does and not just who one is.

Revelation 2: 1  
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Note the imperative is to "Repent and do the things you did at first" rather than "Repent and be the Christians you were at first."


----------



## Madman (Jan 31, 2020)

I just read the 32, there is an expectation of fasting and penance, just as our Lord


Israel said:


> I would suggest otherwise. if the first sentence in the Code of Canon Law (dealing with fasts and abstentions) for this organization is believed.
> 
> Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way.




Does Christ not call us to be a people of fasting and of prayer?  Why would the church call us to any less?


----------



## Madman (Jan 31, 2020)

NE GA Pappy said:


> wings?  did someone say wings?


guess what I had for supper?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jan 31, 2020)

Madman said:


> guess what I had for supper?


fish and chips?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Feb 1, 2020)

Madman said:


> I just read the 32, there is an expectation of fasting and penance, just as our Lord
> 
> 
> 
> Does Christ not call us to be a people of fasting and of prayer?  Why would the church call us to any less?



This is the typical sleight of hand used to confer more authority to men over other men than intended by Scripture.  A calling to fasting and prayer does not mean the manner and time of that fasting and prayer is dictated by some men and other men are sinning by not following human directives.

Under the New Covenant, all men are priests accountable to Christ for their lives.  Scripture says, "The head of every man is Christ."  The job of church ministries is "to prepare God's people for works of service."  That is really quite different from directing that service.  

With respect to the OP, since Scripture is silent, it would be wrong for a church to say, "Chewing tobacco is a sin."  But Christians do well to point each other to the Lord and to Scripture, as there are Scriptural principles of moderation whose violation may be used for the individual believer to determine whether a sinful excess is present in their own case.


----------



## welderguy (Feb 1, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I can appreciate this perspective as a high level view, but Scripture gives enough imperatives to "stop sinning" and enough examples of discussions of what actions are and are not sinful for Christians that it a Biblical view of sin must also include what one does and not just who one is.
> 
> Revelation 2: 1
> To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
> ...



I agree. As long as we also agree that our sins do not and can not change who we are. They change our perception, many times, of who we are, but never who we are to God.

There is a "coming short" of the kingdom that can occur daily, and even hourly. But there's always that city of refuge to run to. Remember the city of refuge in the OT, and it's purpose? It was a shadow of something, er Someone, much greater. Lovely picture.


----------



## Madman (Feb 1, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> This is the typical sleight of hand used to confer more authority to men over other men than intended by Scripture.  A calling to fasting and prayer does not mean the manner and time of that fasting and prayer is dictated by some men and other men are sinning by not following human directives.
> 
> Under the New Covenant, all men are priests accountable to Christ for their lives.  Scripture says, "The head of every man is Christ."  The job of church ministries is "to prepare God's people for works of service."  That is really quite different from directing that service.
> 
> With respect to the OP, since Scripture is silent, it would be wrong for a church to say, "Chewing tobacco is a sin."  But Christians do well to point each other to the Lord and to Scripture, as there are Scriptural principles of moderation whose violation may be used for the individual believer to determine whether a sinful excess is present in their own case.



Men do not have authority over men,  Christ has authority and he gave his church the responsibility of the proper use of certain aspects of that authority.  We see a perfect example of that in Acts 2 during the Jerusalem council.

If a brother is in sin we are to talk to him, if he refuses we are to take another, if he refuses 2 then we take him to the CHURCH, if he refuses still, the CHURCH sets him out.  We also see the Apostles excersizing authority over the various churches, I doubt any of us would consider that "typical sleight of hand used to confer more authority to men over other men". 
Biblical, church authority is biblical.

Not fasting is not claimed as sinful by the church, the church claims that fasting and prayer are beneficial for the Christian.

Historically Christian's have fasted once a week and during various penatential seasons.  We see time again on Acts and the Gospels mention of fasting and when it was done.  If you choose not to fast no one considers it a sin but the church does tell the body what is harmful and what is beneficial in their daily and spiritual life.  

I am assuming the body that you are a part of does too.

As for 1 Peter 2:9 yes in our baptism we have the same priesthood that had been given to Israel, that we may proclaim the praise of Him who called us out of the darkness into His marvelous light.


----------

