Personal Convictions and Liberties

[rsc2a]

Romans 7:5-6  For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in [a]the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Sinful passions are aroused by the forbidden (Man made Rules / Gods OT laws in 1Cor 6:9-10) How the Ot Law works with Grace (Romans 6:14, & 7: 6) since we cannot keep the law. How our substitute cleanses us imputing righteousness (romans 3: 21-22) so the Holy Spirit can do a good work in us. This fruit will bear witness to our Salvation (John 15:2)

Galatians will take exception to you calling the Law "forbidden" even as the letter stresses that the Law cannot save.

 

[brianb]

Is it ever appropriate to directly question someones personal convictions? if so, when?

I'm not talking about a pastor, brother, or sister who constantly judge and belittle those who don't follow their convictions. I am talking about someone who follows a conviction privately, without announcing it to the world, but still observable from an outsider.

Additionally, what about liberties? Should one ever directly question someones liberties?

Only if the scripture plainly speaks against it. A good example of this is drunkenness. Some may have a personal conviction - though it won't have been a Spirit led one that being drunk once or twice a year is ok with God because of good people who were drunk in the Bible like Noah. Normally though if a Christian is drunk it's because they are Biblically illiterate.

Martin Luther actually taught that being drunk occasionally, as stress relief after a tough day at work, or as therapy to deal with grief, etc., is ok for a Christian... but that being an alcoholic or habitual drunk is very NOT ok. I agree with Luther on that.

He's probably not defining drunkenness according to how the Bible defines it. Sounds like he was just suggesting a high but reasonable dosage for therapeutic purposes not to the point of having a hangover the next morning and throwing up - that's just wasteful. In the Bible drunkenness is more than just drowsiness - nothing wrong with that. It's when judgement is impaired when being sober is necessary like when you are working or in social settings where being drunk would not be wise. It's wrong because of the immediate consequences not because it is wrong in and of itself. But don't take my word for it - Read the Bible especially Proverbs. By the way if there's one thing Luther knew a lot about it was the Bible. He didn't just read it and study it - he wrote/translated it into German.

 

[Timothy]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence. Would it not be a crime to ignore a wounded one? Does not the Bible teach to obey God? Perhaps the idea of opening up the dusty pages regarding salvation with a friend are valid - after all, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)

1 John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

We fall so short of loving our brothers and sisters. I know I do. The very freedom that we see, and I am just starting to grasp, should be clear for all.

 

[samspade]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence. Would it not be a crime to ignore a wounded one? Does not the Bible teach to obey God? Perhaps the idea of opening up the dusty pages regarding salvation with a friend are valid - after all, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)

1 John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

We fall so short of loving our brothers and sisters. I know I do. The very freedom that we see, and I am just starting to grasp, should be clear for all.

You are still making the assumption that the other person views their personal conviction as a matter of Godliness. That may not be the case.  Everyone (except sociopaths) has a conscience. They are shaped by our history, our faith, the Holy Spirit (in the case of believers), our community, etc. Just because someone's conscience prevents them from doing something doesn't mean the idea had to come from scripture. They may have a history with certain places or behaviors that they don't wish to revisit or even start. Unless they specifically say that the Bible tells them not to do ___________ and it is clear that Scripture does not teach any such thing, you can't really say it's an extra-Biblical standard.

As an example, someone might not eat at McDonald's because their father died young from heart trouble brought on by too much fatty food. Would you think it was your place to try and talk that person into going there because you think it's ok?

 

[rsc2a]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence.

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Izdaari]

By the way if there's one thing Luther knew a lot about it was the Bible. He didn't just read it and study it - he wrote/translated it into German.

Right. As the History Teachers put it in their song: "An expert Bible sleuth, yeah".

He also had a doctor's degree in theology, and taught it at the University of Wittenberg.

 

[Timothy]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence.

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A conviction not Biblically based on God's truth is evidence of guilt still for sin (seeking peace from God) and innocence of truth (void of true understanding).

 

[rsc2a]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence.

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A conviction not Biblically based on God's truth is evidence of guilt still for sin (seeking peace from God) and innocence of truth (void of true understanding).

No.

 

[Timothy]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence.

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A conviction not Biblically based on God's truth is evidence of guilt still for sin (seeking peace from God) and innocence of truth (void of true understanding).

No.

And why not?

If one is convicted that they shouldn't eat meat offered to idols we respect their ignorance. They can't see the freedom they have in Chirst Jesus, or appreciate it. They seek rules not grounded in anything more than superstition. They want to do right, seeking peace from God, and are simply void of understanding that this meat offered to idols is actually okay to eat.

Ah, but if they are hungry while this meat is all around - what then? Am I to let this poor brother starve to death? Perhaps my own understanding of the matter gives me the ability, in love, to share with this ignorant brother that he can eat this meat. After all, even God did this with Peter.

 

[rsc2a]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence.

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A conviction not Biblically based on God's truth is evidence of guilt still for sin (seeking peace from God) and innocence of truth (void of true understanding).

No.

And why not?

If one is convicted that they shouldn't eat meat offered to idols we respect their ignorance. They can't see the freedom they have in Chirst Jesus, or appreciate it. They seek rules not grounded in anything more than superstition. They want to do right, seeking peace from God, and are simply void of understanding that this meat offered to idols is actually okay to eat.

Ah, but if they are hungry while this meat is all around - what then? Am I to let this poor brother starve to death? Perhaps my own understanding of the matter gives me the ability, in love, to share with this ignorant brother that he can eat this meat. After all, even God did this with Peter.

See fallacy of composition.

 

[Timothy]

A wrongful conviction is evidence of guilt and innocence.

This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A conviction not Biblically based on God's truth is evidence of guilt still for sin (seeking peace from God) and innocence of truth (void of true understanding).

No.

And why not?

If one is convicted that they shouldn't eat meat offered to idols we respect their ignorance. They can't see the freedom they have in Chirst Jesus, or appreciate it. They seek rules not grounded in anything more than superstition. They want to do right, seeking peace from God, and are simply void of understanding that this meat offered to idols is actually okay to eat.

Ah, but if they are hungry while this meat is all around - what then? Am I to let this poor brother starve to death? Perhaps my own understanding of the matter gives me the ability, in love, to share with this ignorant brother that he can eat this meat. After all, even God did this with Peter.

See fallacy of composition.

John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

It is our inability to accept this that allows our minds to be unbalanced. Even I fight with convictions not totally grounded in Scripture - I am ignorant of Scripture and insecure with the freedom Christ gives. I am venerable to false convictions. No fallacy of composition, just a simple fact that fully understanding the freedom in Christ will clear up those faulty convictions.

This is my prayer that I will learn to know better the freedom in Christ Jesus. My position is secure in Christ Jesus, but my life isn't so secure. The sin gets in the way - the faulty mind. Every time my wife doesn't let my daughter wear pants I see the faulty conviction, but the pure freedom in Christ doesn't yet allow her to see it is okay to wear pants. I know it is okay since the whole pants thing is man made and non-existent in scripture. But, my wife is a mom with limited time to study and read God's word. We discuss this issue, but she believe my daughter is best in a skirt. She clings to the ignorance.

 

[rsc2a]

Let me summarize it this way...

Scripture is not the Holy Spirit.

...now that that is out of the way. We are in a different culture and time than when the Scriptures were written. Does that mean that the Scriptures have no value? Absolutely not...and I have a nice little proof if you want it. What it does mean is that we need to recognize the difference in principle and practice. (-doxy vs -praxy)

Additionally, there may very well be things that I cannot consciously participate in due to the Spirit's guidance. For me to do participate in said activities would be sin even if I couldn't point to a text to justify said conviction. There may also very well be things that I cannot participate in for other reasons that have nothing to do with the Spirit or Scripture. I might just think they are stupid. Likewise, there may be things others cannot participate in that I can.

I have no right to force my own convictions on them and they have no right to force theirs on me unless they can show that the prohibition/requirement is universally applied (which would require Scripture). We might discuss our personal convictions and I might ask why they feel led a certain way (the "why" and "how" I keep mentioning), but that doesn't give me a right to act as their mediator between them and God.

* For the sake of brevity, I have completely ignored the corporate nature of the body of Christ. Our faith is largely a communal faith, not an individual one, and when you start considering those factors, it can get to be very lengthy and nuanced.

 

[Biker]

Romans 7:5-6  For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in [a]the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Sinful passions are aroused by the forbidden (Man made Rules / Gods OT laws in 1Cor 6:9-10) How the Ot Law works with Grace (Romans 6:14, & 7: 6) since we cannot keep the law. How our substitute cleanses us imputing righteousness (romans 3: 21-22) so the Holy Spirit can do a good work in us. This fruit will bear witness to our Salvation (John 15:2)

Galatians will take exception to you calling the Law "forbidden" even as the letter stresses that the Law cannot save.

Since the bible doesn't conflict with itself so I'd better explain better my interpretation of..
Romans 6:14.  For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

"We were in the flesh sinful passions were aroused by the law"
Timothy linked the situation to the reason their child is disallowed from bowling to man made rules which is generally what the unsaved are known for, Pharisees most famous for this-
Our sinful passions were (past tense)aroused by the law. We know it is due to it's restrictions or aka "the forbidden" After salvation, our sinful passions don't have dominion over us so it goes against our nature for them to be aroused buy the law and its restrictions. Sin isn't our master any longer, our old nature has been replaced with a new nature.

 

[Biker]

This is my prayer that I will learn to know better the freedom in Christ Jesus. My position is secure in Christ Jesus, but my life isn't so secure. The sin gets in the way - the faulty mind. Every time my wife doesn't let my daughter wear pants I see the faulty conviction, but the pure freedom in Christ doesn't yet allow her to see it is okay to wear pants. I know it is okay since the whole pants thing is man made and non-existent in scripture. But, my wife is a mom with limited time to study and read God's word. We discuss this issue, but she believe my daughter is best in a skirt. She clings to the ignorance.

Good for you You sound well grounded

I agree a dress is not appropriate attire for everyday. Your child is not a doll to dress up, she is an individual.  She should be dressing herself as soon as she is ready. Exposure to various forms of clothing, what fits for her... is only known... by her. Twisting scripture verses to say what they do not...then attempting to apply them to an audience they do not.. (children) is not scriptural.