How do Christian determine right and wrong?

[hordak]

The LDS church takes some heat from having teaching that are contrary to the bible. However these "discrepancies" can be explained with a belief in modern/continuing revelation and other scriptures. We have the ability to "pick and choose" so to speak because of this.

I'm curios how other Christians determine what rules are valid (especial pertaining to social values)?

Example. Paul condemns Homosexuality (in practice) in the NT , Many Christians take this as scripture, but ignore the teaching on divorce delivered by Jesus.

For LDS it's ok because the Prophets have expounded on the law. Since non LDS don't have Prophets how do they determine Pauls words are binding, but Jesus's are not?

[Wingnut]

Example. Paul condemns Homosexuality (in practice) in the NT , Many Christians take this as scripture, but ignore the teaching on divorce delivered by Jesus.

I've actually been thinking about this lately. Many people here know I chose my username because I love the show The West Wing. I was watching an episode recently and came across

, which is a good example of how we often pick and choose to our convenience. (Warning: one mild swear in the title and toward the end of the video.)

[Soulsearcher]

LOL wing i never put it together. I love that show, to this day it's may favorite, and i love that scene as well. :)

I always tie this clip to the one you posted in my mind.

[Wingnut]

Great scene. I can't think of a better way to introduce that fictional POTUS for the first time than how they did in that scene.

I've mentioned the reason for my name choice a few times in other threads, but probably just not ones you've been on.

Okay, back on topic.

[prisonchaplain]

The LDS church takes some heat from having teaching that are contrary to the bible. However these "discrepancies" can be explained with a belief in modern/continuing revelation and other scriptures. We have the ability to "pick and choose" so to speak because of this.

I'm curios how other Christians determine what rules are valid (especial pertaining to social values)?

Example. Paul condemns Homosexuality (in practice) in the NT , Many Christians take this as scripture, but ignore the teaching on divorce delivered by Jesus.

For LDS it's ok because the Prophets have expounded on the law. Since non LDS don't have Prophets how do they determine Pauls words are binding, but Jesus's are not?

Perhaps you could clarify. I do not know of any Christian groups that believe it is okay to "pick and choose," which scriptures to believe. Nor do I know of any that choose Paul over Jesus. Those of us who take the Bible as authorative do not believe there is inconsistency of teaching. So, if you spell out the seeming discrepency, I could walk through how we harmonize it.

[Wingnut]

Perhaps you could clarify. I do not know of any Christian groups that believe it is okay to "pick and choose," which scriptures to believe. Nor do I know of any that choose Paul over Jesus. Those of us who take the Bible as authorative do not believe there is inconsistency of teaching. So, if you spell out the seeming discrepency, I could walk through how we harmonize it.

The video I linked to is a good example. Basically, a conservative Christian radio talk show host gets picked on (okay, slammed) for citing the Bible as forbidding homosexuality, but all the while ignoring the scriptures that talk about stoning as a punishment for working on the Sabbath, or that we should not touch the skin of a pig (football), or wearing clothing made from two different threads, etc. That was what came to mind for me.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks Wingnut. It's very difficult to have an intelligent conversation about Bible interpretation during a heated political discussion. Forums like LDS.net are much better suited! :-)

Much of the Mosaic Law is specifically between Yahweh and Israel, His covenant people. However, the moral principles carry over into the New Testament in a serious way. Some examples:

1. Moses said do not kill. Jesus said not to even call another a fool.

2. Moses said do not commit adulterly. Jesus said to not even think about it (lust).

3. Moses said we are to love our neighbors. Jesus said to love our enemies.

On the other hand, Jesus clearly declared the food laws unnecessary for his Gentile followers, saying that it's what comes out of us, not what goes in, that matters. Circumcision was not required for Gentiles.

On the matter of homosexual practice, Moses and Paul agree. The rejection of it holds. Paul does hint that the desire has some genetic aspect, saying that humanity's rebellion against God resulted in some being "given over" to such attractions. We're also told that some of the followers came out of sexual sins.

We take the Old Testament as God's word, but understand that many of Moses' 613 commandments were specific to the Jews--especially those that focused on ritual. custom and food.

[hordak]

Thanks Wingnut. It's very difficult to have an intelligent conversation about Bible interpretation during a heated political discussion. Forums like LDS.net are much better suited! :-)

Much of the Mosaic Law is specifically between Yahweh and Israel, His covenant people. However, the moral principles carry over into the New Testament in a serious way. Some examples:

1. Moses said do not kill. Jesus said not to even call another a fool.

2. Moses said do not commit adulterly. Jesus said to not even think about it (lust).

3. Moses said we are to love our neighbors. Jesus said to love our enemies.

On the other hand, Jesus clearly declared the food laws unnecessary for his Gentile followers, saying that it's what comes out of us, not what goes in, that matters. Circumcision was not required for Gentiles.

On the matter of homosexual practice, Moses and Paul agree. The rejection of it holds. Paul does hint that the desire has some genetic aspect, saying that humanity's rebellion against God resulted in some being "given over" to such attractions. We're also told that some of the followers came out of sexual sins.

We take the Old Testament as God's word, but understand that many of Moses' 613 commandments were specific to the Jews--especially those that focused on ritual. custom and food.

I'm not referring to Leviticus. Though that is where wingnut took it. I understand it is a "hebrew thing" But how does a Christian determine what is applicable today. (and not just talking about homosexuality.)

For example another moral principal Jesus taught in matt 5 and 19

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Divorce and remarriage save for adultery, is adultery. The verses before and after it in the sermon are taught as "doctrine" among other faiths, as fair as i can tell. But this is not.

So what gives a church/preacher /Christian etc. the right (i don't mean it in the forceful tone the words convey) to ignore this teaching while teaching the rest of the sermon as doctrine.

Why is lust a sin (Because Jesus said so) but remarriage is not (even though Jesus said so in the same sermon)?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not referring to Leviticus. Though that is where wingnut took it. I understand it is a "hebrew thing" But how does a Christian determine what is applicable today. (and not just talking about homosexuality.)

For example another moral principal Jesus taught in matt 5 and 19

Divorce and remarriage save for adultery, is adultery. The verses before and after it in the sermon are taught as "doctrine" among other faiths, as fair as i can tell. But this is not.

Actually it is. In our counseling and preaching we do teach that the only cause for divorce is unfaithfulness. Further, I have personally counseled a woman who left her husband for other reasons that she really should not remarry. My denomination will not ordain a clergyperson who, after conversion, divorces and remarries--even if for reason of unfaithfulness.

So what gives a church/preacher /Christian etc. the right (i don't mean it in the forceful tone the words convey) to ignore this teaching while teaching the rest of the sermon as doctrine.

The verse is not ignored. It is heavily discussed, debated, studied, and taught. Some churches actually prohibit any remarriage. Others allow the victims to remarry, but not the adulterers. Still others may, after serious counseling, allow for remarriage, suggesting that repentence and a willingness to submit to spiritual counseling may suffice.

My point is not to convince you of which approach is best, but to point out that such verses are definitely not ignored. Quite to the contrary, they make for very vigorous study and attention.

Why is lust a sin (Because Jesus said so) but remarriage is not (even though Jesus said so in the same sermon)?

Remarriage can indeed be a sin. I would point out though, that in this passage Jesus' clear focus is not remarriage, but rather a condemnation of easy divorce.

[hordak]

Actually it is. In our counseling and preaching we do teach that the only cause for divorce is unfaithfulness. Further, I have personally counseled a woman who left her husband for other reasons that she really should not remarry. My denomination will not ordain a clergyperson who, after conversion, divorces and remarries--even if for reason of unfaithfulness.

Wow i "picked a fight" with the wrong Christian denomination;)

The verse is not ignored. It is heavily discussed, debated, studied, and taught. Some churches actually prohibit any remarriage. Others allow the victims to remarry, but not the adulterers. Still others may, after serious counseling, allow for remarriage, suggesting that repentence and a willingness to submit to spiritual counseling may suffice.

My point is not to convince you of which approach is best, but to point out that such verses are definitely not ignored. Quite to the contrary, they make for very vigorous study and attention.

So in other words it's like the WoW among Mormons or Birth control among Catholics

( and i would imagine other verses are treated the same) in that fact that is taught but you will run across the occasional member who doesn't follow it/ sees it as less important.

Remarriage can indeed be a sin. I would point out though, that in this passage Jesus' clear focus is not remarriage, but rather a condemnation of easy divorce.

I agree. Thanks for the clarification.

[jayanna]

OKay, I have a question about the remarriage thing in denominations...

Is repentance considered a taking away of the sin repented of?

If someone say, repents of marrying the wrong person, is that repentance not viewed as complete?

For example, if someone is married and divorced, then they are baptized...is that sin washed away, and they are then free to remarry?

[prisonchaplain]

Jayanna, that a sin is forgiven does not mean there are no consequences. To offer the starkest example, we had a youth pastor who fell away badly, even entering into homosexual activity. This was in the early 1980s. He eventually came to full repentence. He confessed his sin, and told his story of redemption to many audiences. Ultimately, he was reinstated to leadership. Nevertheless, approximately ten years after I heard his story, unless there was a miracle I did not hear about, he died from AIDS.

In my fellowship, if a minister divorces any time after his conversion, he cannot retain his leadership if he remarries. Yes, the sin can be forgiven. Yes, he remains a brother, and perhaps a minister in good standing. However, if he remarries (or she, btw), then he will need to seek a calling that does not require ordination.

Forgiveness is not a magic eraser. It does not make everything the way it was before the sin was committed. It can give one strength to carry on, however.

[Human_Nature]

I go to a Pentecostal church and we get invited to other churches all the time(Pentecostal, Baptist,7th day, etc). All the churches I've been too says its wrong to pick and choose what what to follow and what not to follow.Like you can't choose to follow the homosexuality is wrong scripture but you don't follow no fornication scripture. Now some do but we are taught that it is wrong. I was always taught God is the same today, yesterday and forever, he never changes and we believe God is the word so therefore God word never changes. (John 1:1-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now we believe the Old testament was the Old Covenant and that we aren't under that law anymore.

[madeleine1]

The Law was given in order to perfect the Jews. The Law also shows that we are not able to perfect ourselves. It is Jesus who fulfills the Law and we are perfected by Him.

We aren't Jews, subject to Jewish Law. We are Christians, subject to the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

Moses brought down the tablets, the written word of God. Jesus is the Word of God, Incarnate.

Edited March 13, 2011 by madeleine1