Replies

"So it's not a stamp of approval from the Church, but a rejection by the Church of careers devoted to habitual sin."

To extrapolate this comment back to the topic at hand - you are saying that the Scouts practiced "habitual sin"? That's been the topic all along. I've just been probing your suppositions and proclamations using related situations. [not talking about the Scouts under their current gay policy]

"I'm simply pointing out that the Bible does not sanction any group purporting to provide instruction regarding morality other than the pastors of the Church."

I'd like to see that scripture. In fact, you haven't quoted a single scripture, while purporting to hold a superior knowledge of God's intent. But, it's not the first time I've debated with someone espousing men's traditions versus God's clearly articulated will through scripture.

Paul and Peter had the same debate on Gentiles following the Mosaic law and the conclusion was that the Bible is a spiritual book, only understood through the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees and Sadducees interpreted scripture incorrectly because they relied on their own understanding, excluded knowledge from unassociated groups or people, and focused on legalistic interpretations.

Mark 9:38:

"Teacher, said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us... “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."

David, while evading King Saul, entered a Holy temple and ate the Shewbread - Luke 6:4

"He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

Eating the Shewbread was a sin according to Mosaic law, but God imparted to David an understanding of the intent as opposed to the mechanics of obeying the law. That's a key point - the reason laws were introduced was to point the believers to God's love and desire vs rote adherence to rules that none at the time understood.

You made a big deal about parents having the primary, if not exclusive, authority for teaching children anything relating to ethics or morality (making whatever Biblical interpretations and judgment necessary). But then, you contend that only ordained church elders can provide any moral instruction. Whichever - that's as narrow of an interpretation as the Levitical priests denying David the sustenance of the Shewbread. That wasn't God's will and neither is your espoused interpretation of basic Christian and moral instruction led by Scout leaders [not deep theology - simply common sense citizenship like honesty, reliability, stewardship, etc.].

While I agree with the vast majority of your discourse, I keep seeing a highly legalistic interpretation of learning, as well as a vacillation between who is responsible.

Paul and Peter had the same debate on Gentiles following the Mosaic law

The ten commandments still apply. The Book of Proverbs was not contradicted by the New Testament. Etc. Etc.

and the conclusion was that the Bible is a spiritual book, only understood through the Holy Spirit.

While there are mysteries that exceed human understanding within the Bible, the fundamental moral laws it contains are quite clear. There is no verse where Peter and Paul throw up their "intellectual hands" and declare that God's moral laws are a mystery that can be safely ignored.

We know what we read in Acts 21:

"20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
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."

I like this from the Henry commentary:

"The request of James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem to Paul, or their advice rather, that he would gratify the believing Jews by showing some compliance with the ceremonial law, and appearing publicly in the temple to offer sacrifice, which was not a thing in itself sinful; for the ceremonial law, though it was by no means to be imposed upon the Gentile converts (as the false teachers would have it, and thereby endeavoured to subvert the gospel), yet it was not become unlawful as yet to those that had been bred up in the observance of it, but were far from expecting justification by it. It was dead, but not buried; dead, but not yet deadly. And, being not sinful, they thought it was a piece of prudence in Paul to conform thus far. Observe the counsel they give to Paul herein, not as having authority over him, but an affection for him."

In addition to Acts 21, of course we have all sorts of books in the New Testament which exhort ALL followers of Christ to be obedient to him in regards to moral law, as in Galatians 5:

"18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

It is eminently clear: doing those works of the flesh results in the doers of them NOT inheriting the kingdom of God.

The Pharisees and Sadducees interpreted scripture incorrectly because they relied on their own understanding, excluded knowledge from unassociated groups or people, and focused on legalistic interpretations.

None of the moral laws given in the Old Testament were abrogated - Jesus' own words on the subject are perfectly clear.

Ceremonial laws, e.g., the sacrificial system, for believers in Christ, would become a false practice since it would imply insufficiency of Christ's perfect sacrifice. Christ is our sacrificial lamb, the Lamb of God.

As I always point out, the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews address many questions regarding the Old Testament.

You selected out Mark 9:38, dealing with, in very brief terms, unity amongst different groups of believers with different interpretations of doctrine, but then attempt to use that to make the much broader claim that God-given moral laws are abrogated. While we do perhaps have a doctrinal difference there, if I understand you correctly, and we should try to have unity despite the difference, the moral law is an essential part of Scripture. Thus, if you are attempting to bring the Gospel to someone and tell them God has no requirements of them and you purposely omit...

Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

from your message, then you'd be telling the poor someone a horrible lie, leading them to believe that all sins are fine, sin all you want, it's no problem. I hope I'm just misunderstanding your position.

Please, I beg you, please read Romans in it's entirety with the Matthew Henry commentary. You can find it on biblegateway.com and the commentary is at the link "Show resources".

We make a grave mistake by lumping all Old Testament law together, calling it simply "law" and saying that it's flexible.

You basically are describing what is called the "spirit", or intent, of the law versus the "letter of the law". Those situations in moral laws are often more strict, e.g., lusting in one's heart being adultery for one who is married, etc. For the ceremonial laws such as the shewbread, the ceremonial law as a whole points to, or foreshadows, Christ, i.e., that is is primary purpose. David's eating of the shewbread teaches; I like the Henry commentary:

"This was David’s plea, and the Son of David approves it, and shows from it that mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, that ritual observance must give way to moral duties, and that may be done in a case of an urgent providential necessity which may not otherwise be done."

I'll have to expound on Biblical family roles with citations.