Compromise? yay or nay

[Lanolin]

Hmm did the jewish people think the entire new covenant that jesus made was a compromise. Werent they fearful that their law would be done away with. The veil was torn in two though.

God does call us to make peace and reconcile..to forgive one another, is that compromise.

What about not causing a brother or sister to stumble.

You hear of people showing no mercy.. when they dont want to compromise...but you dont really hear of people going 'no grace'

 

[At Peace]

The compromise I was thinking of was the instruction to the Gentiles telling them to abstain from eating food sacrificed to idols, strangled animals and blood. It's a step back from the radical position of Jesus in Mark 7:19: "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.’ (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" The Gentiles were not required to follow all the food laws of the Torah, but in order for them to eat in fellowship with their Jewish brother and sisters they had to follow some of it in order not to cause offense.
At the same time the Jews had to compromise by eating in the presence of people who were not clean according to Jewish custom.

I don't see "obedience" as compromise.
I don't see growth, or adaption to new parameters, as compromise either.
It's just "change".
Thank you, though, for allowing me to see your perspective.

 

[amadeus2]

Hmm did the jewish people think the entire new covenant that jesus made was a compromise. Werent they fearful that their law would be done away with. The veil was torn in two though.

God does call us to make peace and reconcile..to forgive one another, is that compromise.

What about not causing a brother or sister to stumble.

You hear of people showing no mercy.. when they dont want to compromise...but you dont really hear of people going 'no grace'

No matter where people are and what they already have there will be some who will complain about something. The Jews would complain and they were chosen especially by God. They bickered among themselves as to who had it right and who had it wrong [Pharisees, Saduccees, Essennes, Herodians, etc.]. The Christians today are not better. They also often as we see on forums such as this one more interested in winning a personal battle against someone than in accomplishing God's will. All seemingly believe in God the redemption though His Son, but like the Jews before them they bicker among themselves as to who had it right and who has it wrong [Catholics, Baptists, Methodist, Pentecostals, etc.].

Consider the battles within the flesh of the man Jesus. He was tempted as we are tempted and he did not want to suffer so terribly. Who among us would? Yet in his prayer to his Father asking that the "cup" [cup of suffering and death] be removed, each of the three times he prayed he added the following words:

"...O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Matt 26:39

As you say sister, "What about not causing a brother or sister to stumble". What is it we are to do according to the golden rule?

"Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you". [For any here who might doubt that the golden rule is scriptural see Luke 6:31, Matt 7:12, and Rom 13:9... or take it even a step further in Phil 2:3.]

 

[Hekuran]

I agree with the point you are making here... but was the compromise to please God, or to please men?

I guess the compromise was struck in order to help the church stay together in unity.

A long time ago I was involved with a cross cultural team of young adults in mission.

A huge upset arose over the laundry. The western Europeans had no idea that there might be a problem with the men and women's underclothes being washed together, but for the Africans it was horrifying.

It took quite a while to sort that one out...

I can't quite put my finger on the Bible passage where Paul says, in effect, exercise your freedom in Christ, but be careful not to lead weaker brothers astray as you go.

 

[B-A-C]

I can't quite put my finger on the Bible passage where Paul says, in effect, exercise your freedom in Christ, but be careful not to lead weaker brothers astray as you go.

1 Cor 8:9-12; ?

 

[Lanolin]

Its like taking your shoes off before you go into someones house. For asians its the done thing, but for caucasians some do and some dont but they dont automatically do it. It seems like some people just dont care and walk in with dirty shoes all through their house, or sit on the table (not on the chair!) and think it wont offend anyone.

Dont know if thats an example of compromise, its more of respecting each others sensibilities? Its like if you are a smoker not smoking in someones space who is a non smoker. Maybe you go outside or just not smoke around that person.

Having cotton or linen sheets isnt really compromise I dont think but if its going to cause a big argument then maybe...!

 

[Br. Bear]

@Hekuran
Greetings,

I know this is from a while back ( and don't worry I am not stalking !!!) but as i was reading this thread i noticed your post(s) and felt somewhat pressed to reply.

Acts 15 gives a great case study in compromise. Should Gentiles be required to keep the law of Moses. There's a sharp dispute, evidently a very difficult council meeting in Jerusalem until the decision. James says:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

So they decide that Gentiles are not bound by the Law and are free to eat whatever they choose - except for nearly everything.

The "compromise on nothing" position does not reflect the total biblical experience.

I do not know if you ever had any further thought about this or the like but if you go to Genesis, somewhere after the flood... I can't pinpoint from memory but can look it up if you don't beat me to it, Noah was instructed much the same three things.
I had not seen it as a compromise in the Apostles time but three DO NOT's that fairly well give us a picture of what is definitely a No Go zone in God's eyes for us/them.
It is a mercy rather than a compromise.
Why, I do not want to guess God on this, but it could be to do with the fact that practising these things leads to other undesirable behaviour that would definitely be destructive... and maybe even end up as in the Days before the Flood.... the Days of Noah.

Check it out.


Bless you ....><>

ps.. did you ever work out how you were going to make that cheeseburger.... or did you settle for fish'n'chips? ....><>

 

[At Peace]

@Hekuran
Greetings,
I know this is from a while back ( and don't worry I am not stalking !!!) but as i was reading this thread i noticed your post(s) and felt somewhat pressed to reply.
I do not know if you ever had any further thought about this or the like but if you go to Genesis, somewhere after the flood... I can't pinpoint from memory but can look it up if you don't beat me to it, Noah was instructed much the same three things.
I had not seen it as a compromise in the Apostles time but three DO NOT's that fairly well give us a picture of what is definitely a No Go zone in God's eyes for us/them.
It is a mercy rather than a compromise.
Why, I do not want to guess God on this, but it could be to do with the fact that practising these things leads to other undesirable behaviour that would definitely be destructive... and maybe even end up as in the Days before the Flood.... the Days of Noah.
Check it out.
Bless you ....><>
ps.. did you ever work out how you were going to make that cheeseburger.... or did you settle for fish'n'chips? ....><>

Could your Noah directive have involved "not eating the blood"? (Gen 9:4)

 

[Hekuran]

Hello @Br. Bear

I think the acts incident is a fairly clear case of compromise. They set in place a rule that avoided upsetting everybody's sensibilities. But it's not an opinion that I hold so dear that I'm ready to do the back and forth on.

Fish, chips and mushy peas with salt and malt vinegar? One of the wonders of the world - but you need to thrash out a pretty robust compromise between your taste buds and your arteries.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

Could your Noah directive have involved "not eating the blood"? (Gen 9:4)

yes, you are on the right track...

there is and has been much debate about exactly what laws were and were not passed on to the tribe of man.
It would appear that the three mentioned in the Book of Acts chapter 15 were amongst the base or foundational laws for man.

Actually, the whole consideration here in the 'three' directives' and the associated reasons, etc make for an interesting study and also raise some pretty big questions regarding how much a person is expected to know and how much legal framework they still need in place to help keep things in check, so to speak.
(more in next reply to Hekuran)

Bless you ....><>

 

[B-A-C]

It would appear that the three mentioned in the Book of Acts chapter 15 were amongst the base or foundational laws for man.

There is some merit to this. Acts 15:28-29; seem to be a "bare essentials", but is it everything?
Are verses like 1 Cor 6:9-10; and Galatians 5:19-21; also written to Gentiles?

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

if i start with dinner we can talk on full stomach and enjoy the time unhindered....

Fish, chips and mushy peas with salt and malt vinegar? One of the wonders of the world - but you need to thrash out a pretty robust compromise between your taste buds and your arteries.

would you settle for haggis, neeps and tatties?
------------------------

regarding the question about the abstaining from those three things in Acts 15:29 , it has been noted and is quite commonly accepted that historically, the gentiles of that time and place were much into pagan idol ritual which involved very perverse sexual activity, cruel and grotesque sacrifices which included the drinking of blood and quite possibly the eating of live animals. Orgy is the word that comes to mind.
Someone noted in an different thread about the word for 'wrath' being 'orgie' or something similar... the word orgy here in reference to the crazed rituals involving morbid acts of the lowest kind can be seen as a 'wrath' of debasement.... much like a wild storm might rip up everything in it's path showing absolutely no constraint.

So, the suggestion also is made, with a lot of backing, that the three things to abstain from in Acts 15:29 were directly related to the world n which the gentiles lived. The new Christians were being given nothing else but to abstain specifically from those pagan practices.

This makes much sense, given the historical accounts of the rituals here referred to. Most certainly if some were practising those rituals today, most of society would be against it and the church would most probably label it as satanic.

Again, I do not see it was a compromise.

As i said/wrote in the above reply to At Peace, the idea also is that the charges to Noah and even some suggest to Adam, but there is little evidence of/for that, were given as a foundational starting point for the new world that was beginning after the great and terrible flood.

Food for thought....
see, it was best to have dinner first!


Bless you ....><>

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

There is some merit to this. Acts 15:28-29; seem to be a "bare essentials", but is it everything?
Are verses like 1 Cor 6:9-10; and Galatians 5:19-21; also written to Gentiles?

see reply above to Hekuran.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

by the way, there are some wonderful testimonies of God's faithfulness to those who are faithful to Him, in this thread, particularly the faithfulness of some women who wanted to obey and in so doing made a sacrifice of themselves to God and reaped the rewards in their lifetime, to the glory and praise of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am reminded that there is rejoicing over one sinner who repents and is saved. We should be wary that we don't look for a reason to rejoice over one righteous man who sins.... or another way to put that, do we look with expectation and seek to rejoice to find out if a man sins or ought we join the rejoicing over a man who repents and is found faithful?

Which brings another thought to mind.... we are not told if and when any such rejoicing ends. Sometimes we get limited on both sides of the road by our concepts and limited grasp on time and forget the eternal existence of all things God.


have a read and be blessed with the accounts shared.


Bless you all ....><>

 

[Hekuran]

So, the suggestion also is made, with a lot of backing, that the three things to abstain from in Acts 15:29 were directly related to the world n which the gentiles lived. The new Christians were being given nothing else but to abstain specifically from those pagan practices.

This makes much sense, given the historical accounts of the rituals here referred to. Most certainly if some were practising those rituals today, most of society would be against it

Again, I do not see it was a compromise.

Ok.that makes good sense to me. Thank you

 

[Br. Bear]

Ok.that makes good sense to me. Thank you

you are welcome,

If we dig in a bit deeper, we see that the things leading up to the decision of Acts 15:29 were concerning the 'recommendation' or suggestions(?) that the gentiles ought to be circumnavigated at their private parts.

Back in the days....
the membership as a stranger in and of Israel was limited and some say that the keeping of the Law was not required, pertaining to the Temple, etc and indeed was prohibited, because while a stranger (who had to be proven eligible by abstaining etc according to these 'three' rules and possibly a few others,) while a stranger would be welcomed and under the residency protection Act of the Children of Israel, they were never true children, (citizens), as such. Hence, any belonging as members was a foreign policy they (the early Church) had never made any decisions on. As the Church was new, any such decision making had to be made and everyone had to come to the understanding of what was and what wasn't acceptable or needful or legal or not.

Hence again the idea that circumcision would be the mark of belonging... much as it always had been.

We need to remember too that those first Christians were on totally unknown ground. we have a couple of thousand years to help us know and understand what's what. They were covering new ground.

So do we get out the knife and so include them into who we are? (the first Christians were Jews taught by a Jew, and the idea of Christianity being for the Gentiles was still very new - or foreign.) The idea of the 'we' or 'who we are' was still new,

But the decision was made that they ought put none other thing on them but those three mentioned in Acts 15:29
-----------------------------
The Strangers, by the way, and all gentiles, were, before Christ came, considered righteous men if they abstained and again, they were not under the law so while they could attempt to do as the law said as far as not doing wrong to God and other's, they could never get sacrifice and atonement as such, not being Jews. So the walking according the those three (and maybe even a few more) rules, was enough.
The gentiles were not considered righteous enough or select enough (clean enough) to partake of the Law and all it's holy and sanctified measures and demands. A gentile couldn't ever obtain to that... so we see the Grace that has gone out to the Gentiles as being Grace indeed.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Curtis]

It is never a good idea to "compromise" truth on any level, but it is a good idea to "compromise" ones own "liberty", and or "freedom" so as not to "offend" another. We are to abstain from all "appearance" of evil. Doing evil, and having the appearance of doing evil are two completely two different things. I do not consider it a "sin" for me to drink a beer, but it might be considered a sin to another brother. Therefor I will abstain from drinking a beer in the presence of someone who thinks it is evil. As the Apostle Paul said...

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Rom 14:21 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.

 

[Dave M]

It is never a good idea to "compromise" truth on any level, but it is a good idea to "compromise" ones own "liberty", and or "freedom" so as not to "offend" another. We are to abstain from all "appearance" of evil. Doing evil, and having the appearance of doing evil are two completely two different things. I do not consider it a "sin" for me to drink a beer, but it might be considered a sin to another brother. Therefor I will abstain from drinking a beer in the presence of someone who thinks it is evil. As the Apostle Paul said...

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Rom 14:21 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.

do you consider it a sin to drink 6 beers? or more specifically is there a point when drinking becomes a sin do you think?

 

[B-A-C]

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Hmmm... how far do you want to take this?
Being a homosexual isn't unclean? Being a child molester isn't unclean? Being a murderer isn't unclean?
I guess these things are only unclean, if I think they are unclean.

 

[At Peace]

Hmmm... how far do you want to take this?
Being a homosexual isn't unclean? Being a child molester isn't unclean? Being a murderer isn't unclean?
I guess these things are only unclean, if I think they are unclean.

I think we should confine the subject to the context being written of, ie...meats.

We all know your points are unclean, as are lying and theft, and a hundred related things, but the scripture here concerns meat.
Kinda like some won't drink because they think it is wrong while others have no problem with it.
Some won't have blood transfusions while others have no problem with it.