"All things are lawful"

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Try putting the verse into the context of the chapter, and you will find it does permit anyone to shoot heroin and watch porn.

The apostle is NOT saying he is free to do as he very well pleases, but will not because it will not prosper him, nor the Kingdom of God. To think that the apostle is saying that he can do whatever he wants and still remained saved would be the same as saying he was an Epicurean.

To think that Paul is saying that he was saying that everything was legal and he would be free of sin, then why does he name sins and then tell everyone to abstain?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

I agree I don't think he is saying that. My question was how do you technically teach the meaning of the passage vs trying to praraphrase. To me in a strict sense it would have to be antinomian. I don't believe in OSAS or ES.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

sorry Prax I quickly read it and confused 15 with 21! I am kind of busy while scrolling here and there.

I want to make myself clear. I agree food is nothing when it comes to eternity or anything like that! It though is a good thing not to eat those things as God had a reason for it and it was health related. It thoug should not be a issue of contention in the sense of fellowship but more of good stewardship of the body. Making it a issue of contention per heaven or hell has never been my point. Paul is referring to food under the meaning you demonstrated in the sense of 1 Cor and others BUT the text does not allow for you to say so that it won't offend others due to the liberty of your conscience. As the text includes sexual immorality!

Paul ONLY spoke of food in that context and clearly VERY clearly outlawed sexual immorality. Again context is very important. You can't read things into the context that is not there. It's very clear.

However consider what the NET bible commentary said too..did you read that?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Paul ONLY spoke of food in that context and clearly VERY clearly outlawed sexual immorality. Again context is very important. You can't read things into the context that is not there. It's very clear.

However consider what the NET bible commentary said too..did you read that?

I would agree on the others in 1 Cor but in Acts it makes no sense as food would be just as offensive among many other things. To limit to 4 in the context of Acts really makes little sense in the sense of weaker brother position. I would agree more with the it should not be done period, as that would fit the context with the part of sexual immorality. Sexual immorality does not fit the weaker brother scenario.

How do you understand though by itself ALL things are lawful. Paul may say not do it but that in itself does not mean one is judged still saved while still committing sexual sins etc.... IF all things are lawful yet all things are expedient then Paul could still say the same thing. Sexual sins might not be expedient but it would not effect your eternal salvation as no law would condemn them etc... where there is no law there is no transgression etc (per the position of OSAS advocates)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I would agree on the others in 1 Cor but in Acts it makes no sense as food would be just as offensive among many other things. To limit to 4 in the context of Acts really makes little sense in the sense of weaker brother position. I would agree more with the it should not be done period, as that would fit the context with the part of sexual immorality. Sexual immorality does not fit the weaker brother scenario.

How do you understand though by itself ALL things are lawful. Paul may say not do it but that in itself does not mean one is judged still saved while still committing sexual sins etc.... IF all things are lawful yet all things are expedient then Paul could still say the same thing. Sexual sins might not be expedient but it would not effect your eternal salvation as no law would condemn them etc... where there is no law there is no transgression etc (per the position of OSAS advocates)

The food issues were raised because Jews have strict dietary laws. I did not say the sexual stuff fits the weaker brother. you keep saying that and I keep pointing out Paul ONLY said that regarding food and very clearly said fornication is a sin.

You can't understand "all things are lawful" by itself. You can't take something like that out of context. I have said that several times now. Don't take it out of context. Look at the context. I've repeat this same post now a couple times.

Paul was addressing FOOD in regards to weaker brothers, NOT NOT NOT fornication.

Paul is not saying "there is no law". Paul is not saying "do what yo will, you can't sin". To isolate that one verse is to take a verse out of context.

Additionally did you read my comment about what the NET bible commentary said?

[Sherri]

This is how we teach that verse: There is a law of liberty, but we choose to hold to a HIGHER law of love. Just because you are free to do or partake of some things, it's better to abstain from them because of love you have for weaker brethren. That's why we teach abstinence from alcohol. We could do it and more than likely still be saved, but we choose not to because we love our brothers and sisters more, not to mention our love for God.

That's just one example, but it's how we look at several things. Not sure if it really explains the deeper meanings of the verse, but it's how we look at it.

[Praxeas]

I still think you all should consider that the NET bible commentary says

[Praxeas]

JFB
1Co 6:12 -
1Co_6:12-20. Refutation of the antinomian defense of fornication as if it was lawful because meats are so.

All things are lawful unto me — These, which were Paul’s own words on a former occasion (to the Corinthians, compare 1Co_10:23, and Gal_5:23), were made a pretext for excusing the eating of meats offered to idols, and so of what was generally connected with idolatry (Act_15:29), "fornication" (perhaps in the letter of the Corinthians to Paul, 1Co_7:1). Paul’s remark had referred only to things indifferent: but they wished to treat fornication as such, on the ground that the existence of bodily appetites proved the lawfulness of their gratification.
me — Paul giving himself as a sample of Christians in general.
but I — whatever others do, I will not, etc.

lawful ... brought under the power — The Greek words are from the same root, whence there is a play on the words: All things are in my power, but I will not be brought under the power of any of them (the "all things"). He who commits "fornication," steps aside from his own legitimate power or liberty, and is "brought under the power" of an harlot (1Co_6:15; compare 1Co_7:4). The "power" ought to be in the hands of the believer, not in the things which he uses [Bengel]; else his liberty is forfeited; he ceases to be his own master (Joh_8:34-36; Gal_5:13; 1Pe_2:16; 2Pe_2:19). Unlawful things ruin thousands; "lawful" things (unlawfully used), ten thousands.

Barnes
All things are lawful unto me - The apostle here evidently makes a transition to another subject from that which he had been discussing - a consideration of the propriety of using certain things which had been esteemed lawful. The expression, "all things are lawful," is to be understood as used by those who palliated certain indulgences, or who vindicated the vices here referred to, and Paul designs to reply to them. His reply follows. He had been reproving them for their vices, and had specified several. It is not to be supposed that they would indulge in them without some show of defense; and the declaration here has much the appearance of a proverb, or a common saying - that all things were lawful; that is, "God has formed all things for our use, and there can be no evil if we use them." By the phrase "all things" here, perhaps, may be meant many things; or things in general; or there is nothing in itself unlawful.

Clarke
All things are lawful unto me - It is likely that some of the Corinthians had pleaded that the offense of the man who had his father’s wife, as well as the eating the things offered to idols, was not contrary to the law, as it then stood. To this the apostle answers: Though such a thing be lawful, yet the case of fornication, mentioned 1Co_5:1, is not expedient, ου συμφερει - it is not agreeable to propriety, decency, order, and purity. It is contrary to the established usages of the best and most enlightened nations, and should not be tolerated in the Church of Christ.
They might also be led to argue in favor of their eating things offered to idols, and attending idol feasts, thus: - that an idol was nothing in the world; and as food was provided by the bounty of God, a man might partake of it any where without defiling his conscience, or committing sin against the Creator. This excuse also the apostle refers to. All these things are lawful, taken up merely in the light that none of your laws is against the first; and that, on the ground that an idol is nothing in the world, there can be no reason against the last;