For clarification!

BandGuy said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Concerning my positions in these debates, if and WHEN I err, I pray it is always on the side of the distribution of grace and mercy. Sometimes that means living in a world of gray instead of being dogmatic in favor of one side over the other.
Click to expand...
Grace and mercy does not = turning the other way, accepting their sin and acting as if there are gray areas in their sin when the Bible says otherwise. That's the cowardly way out. But, biblical grace and mercy is quite the opposite. Biblical grace, mercy and love proclaims the truth and calls for repentance even when doing so will cost you a friendship. Biblical grace, mercy and love cares more about the truth and repentance than popularity.
Click to expand...

Which is why you point them and encourage them to Jesus FIRST and let God do the changing in their lives. They don't need a sermon from me when they are getting clobbered in the name of Jesus by others anyway.

Grace (from my perspective) is getting them to the oncologist, not screaming at them for having cancer. What the patient does between himself and his "oncologist" is out of my hands. I can support the "oncologist" and encourage personal lifestyle changes in accordance with good health but I am not their "cancer police".
 
Who advocated being any kind of police. Please post a quote.
 
BandGuy said:
Who advocated being any kind of police. Please post a quote.
Click to expand...

I never said anybody in particular was. In my analogy, I said I wouldn't be. Whether someone else is/does is not my issue.
 
If nobody is discussing this idea, then why bring it up? Are you just trolling?
 
BandGuy said:
If nobody is discussing this idea, then why bring it up? Are you just trolling?
Click to expand...

Why does it bother you so much that I stated something that I said was my opinion? Did I hit a nerve? Wasn't my intent...
 
Nope... Just trying to figure out if you have an intelligent point to make or if you're just trolling. So far, I'm leaning towards the latter theory.
 
BandGuy said:
Nope... Just trying to figure out if you have an intelligent point to make or if you're just trolling. So far, I'm leaning towards the latter theory.
Click to expand...

OK, here we go.

...but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Click to expand...

Couple points. First of all, the woman was completely exposed. The crowd (probably a raucous one) was stirred up by the scribes and Pharisees, trying to trap Jesus. Whether He condemned her or not, he would fall into their trap to weaken his influence.

A couple things that pop out to me.

1. The woman was completely exposed. Everyone knew what she had done and her sins were exposed to all. Jesus had a right to condemn her but chose not to.

2. Jesus calmed the crowd. Dunno what He wrote in the dust nor how long He wrote. He could have been drawing. He could have been listing the sins of the crowd. Regardless, without using His voice, save for one sentence, He drew the crowd into uncomfortable silence.

3. Jesus exposed the sins of the scribes and Pharisees. He said that the one without sin was to cast the first stone. That was it. What happened? No one could throw a stone at her. Their sin was as exposed as hers was and they were guilty as much as she, even if they had never committed adultery.

4. Jesus did not condemn the woman.

5. Jesus also did not condemn the scribes and Pharisees either.

6. Jesus addressed the sins of the woman to her personally after she found refuge in Him and away from their condemnation.

This is my whole point. When I used the term "police", the meaning is that I will not "police another's sin" by casting the first stone because I have way too much sin in my own life to deal with.

Hope that explains it.
 
BandGuy said:
So, you're trolling then?
Click to expand...

Nope. Just expounding on my previous quote which you responded to in which I said:

Concerning my positions in these debates, if and WHEN I err, I pray it is always on the side of the distribution of grace and mercy. Sometimes that means living in a world of gray instead of being dogmatic in favor of one side over the other.
Click to expand...

If you want to call it "trolling", so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top