Steve, I expect that we continue to agree on what is right and wrong, but just use different words when explaining it. I am by no means legalistic. However:
I am very cautious about what we label "Sin". The problem is that so many Christians are far too hasty to label everything they see as less than ideal as "Sin", regardless of the words of God. Polygamy for instance - never spoken against, but called "Sin" because it is perceived to be "missing the mark" and not following God's "ideal" plan for marriage. We criticise this attitude in others on that issue, and point them back to scripture. But we must be careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves and just in turn label everything that we do not believe is ideal as "Sin", lest we too end up condemning those that God does not condemn.
Sin is black and white, in God's eyes. In His eyes there is a clear boundary. However we see this imperfectly and fallibly, and there are areas that are legitimately debated because God has chosen for whatever reason not to clearly and unambiguously label them as sin in the Bible. I know my understanding of God's commands has changed through my life due to my imperfect understanding, I hope my understanding is moving towards perfection but know it will never completely reach that. We must be humble. So I find it much more prudent to divide things into three categories, which for want of better terms I'll call:
- Sin. Stuff that is directly and unarguably condemned in scripture (1 John 3:4)
- Foolishness. Stuff that is not directly condemned, or might be condemned but the scriptures are debatable for one reason or another, but is clearly a stupid idea to do. May or may not be sin.
- Acceptable things.
Then, in my own life, I avoid both Sin and Foolishness - because I know a good chunk of what I've labelled "Foolishness" might actually be sinful, and even if it isn't sin it's not going to be helpful in my life.
At the same time, in the lives of others, I condemn Sin from scripture but refrain from labelling Foolishness in that way, rather treating others with grace here as I know I could be wrong.
This means I've got a good buffer of things that I avoid, including all that could be sin. This is a whole lot safer than trying to define the line precisely and then thinking it is completely ok to do everything right up to that line, but not beyond it. That's legalism. And then, if you've got the line wrong, you could quite easily end up in sin. And what about if your beliefs change - "hey, I just did a Bible study and now think it's ok to use a prostitute, couldn't see anything against it, awesome, where's the telephone book?" - then tomorrow - "oh, oops, didn't see that verse. Probably shouldn't have done what I did last night then..."! Bit of an extreme example, but hope it illustrates my point. Far safer to be humble and recognise there is a grey area, than arrogantly believe you know the line perfectly.
So, to apply this to firstofmany's question:
firstofmany said:
My husband wants to know if you then believe that a single woman can have as much sex as she wants without committing sin as long it is not beastiality, incest, etc. He says your perspective is too narrow and the womans actions should be considered when deciding if sin has been committed. You seem to be only looking at it from a man's point of view. Can it be okay if it leads the woman to sin? Does the Father in any way lead us as the bride to sin? Does He not say to flee the every appearance of sin? Not just sin, but the merest appearance of sin?
If you're a single woman - don't sleep around, it's a stupid idea for so many reasons, could well be sinful - and if you believe it is sin it most certainly is for you anyway (Romans 14:23).
If you know a single woman who is doing this - lead her to a better lifestyle in a loving and accepting fashion, like Christ would. It's not as though shouting "Evil Sinner" at her would help anyway.
figured was too obvious to need it. ...
