Knight our ever-present Admin makes a great post!
Pettrix said:With that being said. The above example you made is apples and oranges, night and day, examples of what I am talking about here. To disregard or follow a red light has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with SPIRITUAL SERVICE in Grace as saved believers. Obeying a red light is NOT spiritual legalism. It is an earthly law enacted to prevent car accidents. Once again, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are trying to state that a "law" of red lights is somehow the same as "legalism" in the Christian service. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. A saved Grace believer serving God under Grace and following the "law" of stopping at a red light, has ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100%, NOTHING TO DO with legalism as defined in service to God in the realm of SPIRITUALITY.
Knight said:Yet you believe that it's a sin to speak out against the failing public school system. Why is speaking out against the failing public school system a sin, yet speaking out about traffic laws isn't?
Pettrix said:I am lost as to your application and question. What is the above really asking or meaning? Please clarify the question.
Knight said:My third question is simple....
You assert that it's wrong and sinful to warn people about the failing public school system, i.e., you warn me that its a sin. Which begs the question.... is it OK to warn the warners?
In other words...
Apparently you believe its a sin to warn others about societal evils yet its not a sin to warn the folks that are warning others.
Why is it OK for you to warn, but not OK for others to warn?
Pettrix said:"For why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (I Cor. 10:29-31).
In the age of grace, Paul had liberty to partake if he so desire. Paul could have demanded his rights, but he chose rather to allow grace to control his actions. He didn't wan to caus a weaker brother to stumble, so it was best for him to abstain from eating all meats offered to idols if it caused an offense. And he was willing to do so! Thus the apostle concludes: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God" (I Cor. 10:32).
Knight said:Yet Paul also said this...
1Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person.
When Paul told other Christians to NOT EAT with sexually immoral people who called themselves Christians was he be legalistic?
If not, why not?
You quote.... 1 Cor 6:12 All things are lawful unto me
If all things are lawful for me who are you to tell me its a sin to speak out against societal evils?