Are the ten commandments the sole arbiter of church policy?

[karl]

Are the ten commandments the sole arbiter of church policy?

If the church only avoids things prohibited by the ten commandments we will be OK to ordain wine bibbers, practicing homosexuals, polygamists, and other practitioners of stuff we now avoid.

The ten commandments are silent about many things. I think we need the entire Bible.

[Cosmin M.]

Can you make a door if you only have the handle? You need the whole thing.

[phkrause]

Can you make a door if you only have the handle? You need the whole thing.

And don't forget the frame!

pk

[Neil D]

The ten commandments are silent about many things. I think we need the entire Bible.

Um, tell me...is there, in the Ten Commandments a prohibition against anger? How about lust? What about "extensively borrowing" tools from your [insert relative/neighbor of your choice]?

And yet, Jesus was able to point out that anger that produces the words " you fool!" was enough to break the Commandments.....Do we need the entire bible? Not in the sense of religiously following every line found in the bible...but creative imagination with prayer and you will be light years ahead of others....

[Bravus]

I guess I'm on the same page as Neil (and in agreement with the overall point of the original post, though with problems with some of the details): it's to Jesus' clarification and expansion in Matthew 5 that I think we should be looking.

But what that tells us, contrary to the spirit of the original post above, is that we are *all* sinners, so it's impossible to keep sinners out of the church. So why keep out the specific classes mentioned there, and admit the rest of us? The church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints...

[Dr. Shane]

Addictive and compulsive behavior violates the First Commandment's prohibition of having other gods. That covers a lot of sins that are not even mentioned any where in the Bible.

[Neil D]

I guess I'm on the same page as Neil (and in agreement with the overall point of the original post,.......The church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints...

Why, Bravus, I thank you for the affirmation!....although I think you do a much better job of being clear in your writing than I ever could...

And yes, emphatically YES!, the church is a hospital for sinners, and not a club for saints.....

[Dr. Shane]

So why keep out the specific classes mentioned there, and admit the rest of us?

[Bravus]

That's a fairly easy one, and we're in agreement: but what do we do with the constant gossiper in the church? The overeater (or undereater)? The cruel and arrogant? The one who says 'raka' to evolutionists? And so on. Is it just about the easy sins to detect... or the sensational ones that pique our puerile curiosity? Hardly seems fair.

More attention on making *ourselves* fit for the kingdom and less on deciding who else is unfit is *always* the healthiest course.

[Dr. Shane]

Church discipline is normally administered when the sins are public. I think the philosophy is private sin = private matter. It is suppose to be administered in love. I have seen it done right and I have seen it done wrong. I have seen it bring sinners to repentance and seen it cause some to give up on faith. It certainly isn't something that should be done lightly or by the wrong group of people.

As far as gossipers go... I am all in favor of duct tape. That seems to work good.

[Neil D]

As far as gossipers go... I am all in favor of duct tape. That seems to work good.

The problem with duct tape for gossipers is that it make a very bad fashion statement....

Are we talking about "Church policy" or "Church discipline"? It seems to me that church policy is a guide for where the church plans to go...where as Church discipline is....well, discipline...kicking some out of church for public or private sins....

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

So why keep out the specific classes mentioned there, and admit the rest of us?

The intention of the disciplinary process is to bring sinners to repentance - not purify the church.

Quote:

The church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints...

True. Now what would we do with an alcoholic in a rehabilitation hospital that is continuously caught bringing in liquor?

Would you want to go to a hospital where no one ever got better? Sounds more like a leper colony.

[karl]

So why keep out the specific classes mentioned there, and admit the rest of us? The church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints...

The OP is about not "ordaining" wine bibbers, practicing homosexuals, or polygamists. It says nothing about keeping them out. Or were you implying that church membership is adequate qualification for ordination?

[Neil D]

Would you want to go to a hospital where no one ever got better? Sounds more like a leper colony.

I have been to churches where they were run more as a hospital than a social club....and the people there, really do get better.....and they are much better friends and close friends and "BFF"s than any social club ever was....

[Bravus]

Ah, fair enough karl, my apologies for not reading the OP closely enough.

I guess to some extent my point could be extended, though: all pastors are sinners too...

But it's good to be in a hospital where the doctors are a bit healthier than the patients, I grant.

Recognising that we're all sick is a *prerequisite* for getting us well, doug, not an obstacle to it. It's those who are too busy diagnosing others' speck issues to seek treatment from the Great Physician for their own log problems I was talking about...

[Bravus]

(and, lest anyone think I haven't checked the mirror lately, I'm very aware of my personal Sequoia forest... - and the Spirit seems to be able to point still more out to me if I shut up and listen)

[phkrause]

(and, lest anyone think I haven't checked the mirror lately, I'm very aware of my personal Sequoia forest... - and the Spirit seems to be able to point still more out to me if I shut up and listen)

Excellent post Bravus.

pk

[abelisle]

"sole arbiter" ? ?

It should be but it isn't. Cultural mores, tradition and EGW statements carry a lot of weight.

Here's an interesting anecdote: someone said if you eat meat, you're a sinner. When told that Jesus ate fish and lamb (at Passover supper) and He was sinless, the response was, "well, that wasn't a sin then but is a sin now."

Alex

[Woody]

Good One Alex.

[Tom Wetmore]

Apparently Truth does change over time...

[LifeHiscost]

not a club for saints.....

I suppose that would be an arguable point if it (the church) was not perceived to be the body of Christ, which protects all those within it's confines, making it difficult for those who feel the existence of some in the body above the state of ordinary sinners. Some who believe the latter do make the church a club, heavy enough to literally club the life (that is spiritual life)out of the sinners who wish to enter.

OTOH, there are some who club themselves to death by believing when the Word says anything contrary to the presently held comfort zone, it is automatically held to be part of the club.

"For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."1 John 3:20 NKJV

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."John 3:17 NKJV

Regards!!

[LifeHiscost]

Apparently Truth does change over time...

"well, that wasn't a sin then but is a sin now."

When Jesus ate fish, it wasn't loaded with mercury, et al.

Mercury: a heavy silver-white poisonous metallic element.

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Cor 10:31 NKJV

OTOH If one were on a deserted isle with only a pig for sustenance, would it be a sin to eat the pig to avoid starvation?

I'm aware of an exploring party to one of the poles, who were found after perishing in the cold atmosphere, eventually after autopsy, concluded they all died of eating bear meat, infested with the trichina worm.

Regards!!

[karl]

Truth does not change over time. The truth in Jesus day was that eventually some fish would become toxic with mercury. The truth in our time is that some fish have become toxic with mercury.

The truth in Jesus day (hopefully) was that fish were not then toxic with mercury. The truth for our time is that the fish in Jesus time were not toxic with mercury.

Sounds like I'm repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't it? That's because it is the truth.

What is now does not necessarily have a truth relationship to what was then.

Regarding truth, I don't think we can say that a lie became the truth or that the truth became a lie.

Punctuate this so that it makes sense:

THAT THAT IS IS THAT THAT IS NOT IS NOT THAT IS IS IT NOT IT IS

[Bravus]

Not sure the variable degree to which some fish contain mercury changes whether eating all fish is *sinful* though. It might change whether it's advisable and a good idea. But take the 'anything unhealthy (or even potentially unhealthy) is sin' thing too far and we're all sinners (again) for taking either too little or too much exercise, water, fresh air, sleep, sunlight etc.

[Bravus]

...and if, as Shane suggested, 'public sin' is the criterion for church discipline, we start disfellowshipping those who are too fat (or too thin).