Offending a fellow believer

[_anothersteve]

never mind

[_anothersteve]

TK,

you may have an initial "twinge" in your conscience. But if you resolve, for example, that it's ok to take your son to the movie then it's ok.

Paul said in Romans "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin."

So therefore, if you had an intial twinge but determined that you could take your son in faith...or smoke your cigar. Then it's ok.

On the other hand, I think that if doubts persist...don't do it....until you have faith to do it....

By the way, from what I understand, there were some tremendous men of God in the past who smoked significantly more than you do.

And also, don't be sorry for "carrying on". These are very practical questions that should and need to be addressed. I think many, including myself, can relate.

Steve

PS...remember that movies are rated by men ...here in Canada movies that are rated R in the States are often rated PG13 or even PG in rare instances. I think the reason for the rating is more important.

[Guest]

With reference to the passages raised at the top of this thread, there is no evidence in scripture that Paul ever discouraged a Jew from being circumcised or felt circumcision was inappropriate for Jews (Rom.2:25), even if they had become Christians. In fact, as the apostle to the Gentiles, he seemed pleased to defer to the boys in Jerusalem to worry about regulations for the Jewish believers (Gal.2:7-10).

When James asked Paul to pay fees for four Nazirites, it wasn’t because the Jews had heard that Paul discouraged Gentiles from being circumcised, and that he wished to prove otherwise. Paul actually did discourage—and even forbid—Gentile converts to be circumcised (Gal.5:2). This stance was not controversial in the church at the late date of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, since the Jerusalem Council had actually endorsed Paul’s policy seven or eight years earlier.

The Jews had heard (wrongly) that Paul discouraged Jews from circumcising their children (Acts 21:21). Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles was hard enough for them to swallow, but if he was now meddling in Jewish affairs, this would be intolerable to them. Since Paul was innocent of the charge, and was on James’ turf, he agreed to show that he was himself an observant Jew—at least when among observant Jews (1 Cor.9:20)!

That Gentiles should not be forced to keep the terms of the Old Covenant (including circumcision) was a non-negotiable aspect of the Gospel itself, in Paul’s mind (Gal.5:3-4). This is why he would not allow his Gentile companion Titus to succumb to Jewish pressure to be circumcised—it was “that the truth of the Gospel might continue” (Gal.2:5).

Timothy, on the other hand, was technically Jewish, but had never been circumcised (probably due to his Gentile father’s objection to it). However, when Paul wished to take Timothy with him, in order not to offend the Jews unnecessarily, he first had him circumcised. This was because the Jews of the region “all knew that [Timothy’s] father was a Greek” (Acts 16:3). That is, they might suspect that he had neglected to be circumcised and ask about it. Paul wanted to be able to say that his Jewish companions had indeed been circumcised, so as not to stir up extra trouble with their countrymen.

I don’t know that “stumbling” others was the issue in the cases of Timothy and Titus, but rather, as Emmett pointed out, it was that one was a Jew and the other a Gentile—and Paul’s anti-circumcision message only pertained to the latter.

[_anothersteve]

your cookie example is different, because for "john" it was not a gray area. he thought (wrongly) that he could not take a cookie but did so anyway. a better example would be that he knows he can have the cookie, but there is only one left and his conscience tells him to leave it for someone else, even though he rightfully can take it.

TK

I think I understand what you're trying to say. I guess the analogy would work best in a situation where, for example, an individual clearly believed it was a sin to drink wine and did so anyway.

Steve