All Things Are Lawful Unto Me

[FHII]

If he thought all things are lawful, I don't understand why he was upset.

Because they are not expedient. Again,his real problem was their mistreatment of each other. They were using Grace for the wrong reasons.

 

[FHII]

I don't believe Paul is advocating antinomianism.

So if we engage in adultery, theft or murder from time to time, that would not be expedient, and because they are lawful, they are okay so long as they don't become a habit.

No, he said they were not expedient. That makes them not ok.

 

[FHII]

Who said anything about pork chops? The problem was with eating foods sacrificed to idols (which is still prevalent all around the world). And both chapters are connected in this regard. It should be obvious that the works of the flesh are NOT lawful. Neither is taking other believers to court. But regarding dietary restrictions all meats are lawful but all things are not expedient, since they will impact on others. And I already quoted the relevant verse. But if you want to tell Christians that carnality is lawful, Paul would strongly reject that.

If you want to believe that, go right ahead.

 

[brakelite]

No, he said they were not expedient. That makes them not ok.

So you really think that he objected to murder and adultery simply on the ground that they were a bother for some people?

 

[Giuliano]

No, he said they were not expedient. That makes them not ok.

If someone was out of a job, had a family to support and they all faced eviction and hunger, I'd think stealing could be reckoned as being expedient. I think most actions could be justified as being expedient or profitable one way or another.

Suppose my father dies, and it falls to me to support his wife. Should I marry her since I have to support her, or should I marry another woman and support them both?

 

[Sabertooth]

The Biblical text:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1 Corinthians 10:23 KJV
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

These are some pretty profound verses which I wish many would consider.

In the contemporary, secular vernacular, it is the equivalent of saying,
"Just because you CAN do [something], doesn't mean that you SHOULD do [that thing]..."

 

[Giuliano]

Who said anything about pork chops? The problem was with eating foods sacrificed to idols (which is still prevalent all around the world). And both chapters are connected in this regard. It should be obvious that the works of the flesh are NOT lawful. Neither is taking other believers to court. But regarding dietary restrictions all meats are lawful but all things are not expedient, since they will impact on others. And I already quoted the relevant verse. But if you want to tell Christians that carnality is lawful, Paul would strongly reject that.

So is eating things offered to idols right or wrong? When I read Acts, I thought the Apostles had settled the issue:

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Then along comes Paul who says no, it is okay as long as you're not offending someone.

1 Corinthians 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

I find his criticism of people who obey the ruling of the Apostles unwarranted. Why accuse them of having a weak conscience?

I'd also like to know how anyone could get food offered to idols unless he was at the temples of such idols. I wonder if he thought attending idolatrous services for free food would be considered "expedient" in his book.

Paul truly confounds me at times.

 

[amadeus]

Well, even though I don't go to bars that often, I personally don't have a problem with that. Come to think of it, I've visited one bar a total of 4 times in the last 2 or 3 years, and it was because the owner is an aquaitence with a common interest. It is a microbrewery, but he could've been selling carrot sticks and celery stalks and I woulve went.

But I understand and agree with your reasoning. And it actually takes the discussion in another direction.

So, Amedeus... If you came to visit... I surely wouldn't bring you there for dinner. Likewise I would hope you wouldn't bring me to a place I wasn't comfortable in.

The Bible does speak of this in that we should consider our brother when making such choices. Though something may be lawful, it isn't expedient to do if it makes your brother uncomfortable.

Romans 14:22 KJV
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

Well maybe I'll come to visit you next week... so see if you can find a reasonable alternative...LOL, don't believe absolutely everything that I say. If on the other hand, you come to see me, we'll try to do right by you for sure.

I suppose you also read the two or three verses immediately preceding your Rom 14:22. For me they clarify the verses you cited in the OP:

"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Rom 14:19-21

Give God the glory!

 

[marks]

The Biblical text:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1 Corinthians 10:23 KJV
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

These are some pretty profound verses which I wish many would consider. Some general observations:

1. We should take into context what Paul's problem was with the Church at Corinth. I do not believe it was their sins (though they were sinning and Paul wasn't happy about it) but rather they were mistreating others with their sins and letting unbelievers judge them.

2. Does this verse really mean "ALL" things? I believe it does, as it pertains to the flesh. It doesn't pertain to spiritual sin which is false worship. THAT could be a big discussion, of course, but it's not the direction I want to go.

The verses do say all things are lawful. That's part one. Part 2 is that: even though they are lawful, it doesn't make them expedient (practical, moral, necessary). It doesn't mean we should be controlled by them (even if we do engage in them from time to time). And it certainly doesn't mean they edify (give glory to) us or God.

In short, Just because we have liberty and Grace (through faith) doesn't mean we should or do act upon it.

So, I will not go into a long commentary. But I will say that yes, all things are lawful and covered by gràce. (Again with the caveat that I believe it is fleshly allowance). But that by no means makes it right, good, or non harmful. Grace covers the sin, but not the consequences! Grace may cover me from seeking out prostitutes (something I DO NOT DO), but Grace isn't going to keep me from getting AIDS and it's not going to keep my marriage from being harmed. It also isn't going to glofify God in any way and it's going to bring reproach to the Church. As an extreme example....

Whether you believe that Grace covers all things of the flesh (as I do), all things otherwise, or you don't believe it covers all things at all... It's an interesting verse to wrap your thoughts around.

Even us who believe it covers all things should consider that we have a responsibility to understand this verse. And those who don't believe all things are lawful, well... The Bible does say it, but such liberty does come with responsibility! And those who don't believe all things are lawful should at least understand that those who do understand these verses. In other words, just because we believe all things are lawful doesn't mean we are doing all things!

One more pertinent verse, without comment (for now):

1 Peter 2:16-17 KJV
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. [17] Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Being dead to the Law makes it difficult for anything to be unlawful.

And yes, it does drive the legalists bonkers.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I can't say I do understand them. Why did Paul then seem disturbed by a man marrying his father's wife and other things?

Because not everything is good for you and others, and some things may indicate that you aren't really Christ's.

Much love!

 

[marks]

what is interesting is that legalism is not solely the view that one gets to heaven by works (I doubt that any Christian would think that their works will get them to heaven) but the view that persuades folk that without them they will get to heaven (yet this is never admitted)

Though our works have nothing to do with whether we live with God or not. Jesus' works do. Our works show the reality of our faith.

Much love!

 

[Giuliano]

Because not everything is good for you and others, and some things may indicate that you aren't really Christ's.

Much love!

If all things are lawful, how could there be things that may indicate people aren't really Christ's?

Being dead to the Law makes it difficult for anything to be unlawful.

And yes, it does drive the legalists bonkers.

Much love!

I am a Gentile. I was never under the Law of Moses.

 

[amadeus]

If all things are lawful, how could there be things that may indicate people aren't really Christ's?
I am a Gentile. I was never under the Law of Moses.

There is no rule book with black and white definitions of right and wrong. Guidelines may be in the Bible, the direction for us should come through the Holy Spirit in us. Without that, we will likely go in a hundred or more different directions. Consider how many Christians denominations they say exist today. Is it 30 or 40 thousand? People regularly quench the Spirit and follow their own ways or the ways of other men or their own interpretation of the Bible and wonder why there is so much disagreement on so many points among supposedly believing followers of Jesus.

We may decide what we believe is lawful, but whether or not it is and whether it is expedient or should be determined by the Holy Spirit in us. Some presume that what they read in the Bible is inspired in them... but it is not as simple as that. It is simple, but it is also complex. But... our minds do not have to figure it our. All we have to do is listen to God and obey. Where is the hearing and where is the obedience?

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem 10:23

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

 

[marks]

If all things are lawful, how could there be things that may indicate people aren't really Christ's?
I am a Gentile. I was never under the Law of Moses.

It's not that all things are lawful for everyone.

The law is given for the ungodly.

And absolutely true, the Law of Moses was given to Israel.

Much love!

 

[Giuliano]

There is no rule book with black and white definitions of right and wrong. Guidelines may be in the Bible, the direction for us should come through the Holy Spirit in us. Without that, we will likely go in a hundred or more different directions. Consider how many Christians denominations they say exist today. Is it 30 or 40 thousand? People regularly quench the Spirit and follow their own ways or the ways of other men or their own interpretation of the Bible and wonder why there is so much disagreement on so many points among supposedly believing followers of Jesus.

We may decide what we believe is lawful, but whether or not it is and whether it is expedient or should be determined by the Holy Spirit in us. Some presume that what they read in the Bible is inspired in them... but it is not as simple as that. It is simple, but it is also complex. But... our minds do not have to figure it our. All we have to do is listen to God and obey. Where is the hearing and where is the obedience?

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem 10:23

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

I believe there has always been only one Law, the Eternal Law of Love. The guidelines in the Bible are just that, guidelines; and the laws given to Israel were given only after they said they did not want to hear the Voice of God. So they were given approximate rules, useful in that day in that cultural context. Those rules were useful for people who did not hear the Voice of God the way traffic laws are usually useful today. As people mature, they need to know where to break the rules. For example, there are laws about running red lights and speeding; but if you were driving someone with a medical emergency to the hospital, I hope you would break traffic laws as safely as you could. I hope you would steal my car if you needed to. Those laws were designed to save lives, not put them at risk.

Expedient? I don't like how Paul used the word. He makes "right and wrong" sound like a matter of convenience. Not all things are lawful because not every act is in line with the Golden Rule. If I am deliberately unloving towards my neighbors, I cannot claim to be on good terms with God, saying that I love God and that He approves of me, not when I am injuring His other children.

Why didn't Paul keep it simple and teach the Golden Rule? Even if he hadn't heard Jesus' quote, he would have known what Gamaliel's grandfather had said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Hillel the Elder was right. Jesus was right. Why did Paul make this so complicated?

 

[Giuliano]

It's not that all things are lawful for everyone.

The law is given for the ungodly.

And absolutely true, the Law of Moses was given to Israel.

Much love!

What are you saying? That the ungodly need to obey the laws, but godly people don't?

Clearly if no one ever stole or was even tempted to, we wouldn't need laws about it; but since there are laws, they apply equally to everyone. I don't think God has two standards for people.

 

[marks]

What are you saying? That the ungodly need to obey the laws, but godly people don't?

Clearly if no one ever stole or was even tempted to, we wouldn't need laws about it; but since there are laws, they apply equally to everyone. I don't think God has two standards for people.

1 Timothy
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Much love!

 

[marks]

They were using Grace for the wrong reasons.

Very significant concept there. That grace can become a license for sin. How can such a thing be?

Much love!

 

[marks]

So you really think that he objected to murder and adultery simply on the ground that they were a bother for some people?

These things are not acts of love for others. So don't do them. Only love. But if, God forbid, you, as a born again child of God, if you were to murder, you'll not be judicially guilty before God. Since the child of God is dead to Law.

Where there is no law, there is no transgression.

But don't think that because you can murder and God will not condemn you for it that it's what you want to do, should do, I'm sure you wouldn't. But even so, to answer your question, yes, Paul objects because of what it does to others. It's not love.

And if you find you actually want to, or do these things, look to yourself, you may not be that "new creation".

Much love!

 

[Giuliano]

1 Timothy
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Much love!

I already mentioned the fact that if no one wanted to steal, we wouldn't need laws about stealing, didn't I? The laws against stealing still applies equally to to everyone, both to those tempted to steal and those not tempted.