Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[Neto]

I edited this quotation to read as I think was intended. Please correct me my assumption is incorrect.

It takes a certain amount of maturity and submission to be able to recognise that the Bible doesn't teach that I should [sic - shouldn't] keep hard drugs like heroin in my home, use them, or keep hard liquor, but yet it is entirely sensible and in fact biblical for a church to forbid its members do such things.

I think that there are clearly-taught Biblical principles in both the Old & New Testaments that forbid such practices. So I agree that it is "entirely sensible and in fact biblical" for a congregation to write out such prohibitions in clear and specific terms. (I do recognize that 'hard liquor' is used by some people as an ingredient in medicinal concoctions.)

[JohnH]

I edited this quotation to read as I think was intended. Please correct me my assumption is incorrect.

It takes a certain amount of maturity and submission to be able to recognise that the Bible doesn't teach that I should [sic - shouldn't] keep hard drugs like heroin in my home, use them, or keep hard liquor, but yet it is entirely sensible and in fact biblical for a church to forbid its members do such things.

I think that there are clearly-taught Biblical principles in both the Old & New Testaments that forbid such practices. So I agree that it is "entirely sensible and in fact biblical" for a congregation to write out such prohibitions in clear and specific terms. (I do recognize that 'hard liquor' is used by some people as an ingredient in medicinal concoctions.)

Whoops!

Nonetheless the Bible doesn’t really ever teach directly not to use hard drugs. Thus, any church teaching that is making extra biblical decisions and enforcing an extra biblical standard.

[Ernie]

Nonetheless the Bible doesn’t really ever teach directly not to use hard drugs. Thus, any church teaching that is making extra biblical decisions and enforcing an extra biblical standard.

That is the point I was trying to make as well.

As I said earlier, a stronger case can be made for some standards than others, but to dismiss any standards that I don't see much point in as "unnecessary and extra-biblical" (if they don't conflict with the higher laws of God) yet embrace other standards that make sense to me because they are "biblical standards", just doesn't set well with me.

[Anthony]

Nonetheless the Bible doesn’t really ever teach directly not to use hard drugs. Thus, any church teaching that is making extra biblical decisions and enforcing an extra biblical standard.

That is the point I was trying to make as well.

As I said earlier, a stronger case can be made for some standards than others, but to dismiss any standards that I don't see much point in as "unnecessary and extra-biblical" (if they don't conflict with the higher laws of God) yet embrace other standards that make sense to me because they are "biblical standards", just doesn't set well with me.

If i don't like it then its legalistic and unbiblical. if I like it then its just common sense biblical principals extrapolated from scripture #hermeneutics

On a more serious note, I agree, I find this often within people in my church circles (maybe every church is like this). We have certain dress code restrictions that the world would see as extremely restrictive but we have no problem with. Then liberal church members balk at Amish standards for being legalistic and clothing obsessed

I find it amusing.

[JimFoxvog]

Nonetheless the Bible doesn’t really ever teach directly not to use hard drugs. Thus, any church teaching that is making extra biblical decisions and enforcing an extra biblical standard.

True, as hard drugs weren't available then and there. But it is reasonable to take the command against drunkenness to similarly be against other substances that cause an impaired mental state.

And, of course, we should obey the laws, if not against the New Testament's teaching, so illegal drugs are directly prohibited.

[JohnH]

Nonetheless the Bible doesn’t really ever teach directly not to use hard drugs. Thus, any church teaching that is making extra biblical decisions and enforcing an extra biblical standard.

True, as hard drugs weren't available then and there. But it is reasonable to take the command against drunkenness to similarly be against other substances that cause an impaired mental state.

And, of course, we should obey the laws, if not against the New Testament's teaching, so illegal drugs are directly prohibited.

Many drugs are legal now.

Many of them don’t exactly induce drunkenness but do cause some other kind of altered state.

[Soloist]

If i don't like it then its legalistic and unbiblical. if I like it then its just common sense biblical principals extrapolated from scripture #hermeneutics

On a more serious note, I agree, I find this often within people in my church circles (maybe every church is like this). We have certain dress code restrictions that the world would see as extremely restrictive but we have no problem with. Then liberal church members balk at Amish standards for being legalistic and clothing obsessed

I find it amusing.

Of course. I’m in the most scriptural position. The Amish are legalistic, everyone on here is liberal. anyone who says differently is just trying to sell you a heretical position!