Quote:
Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith
Paul's appeal had to do with defending the gospel against unbelievers, the gospel, not secular matters. The point is, disputes between believers ought to be settled among believers and not in such away that would discredit believers in front of unbelievers. Here, it's any dispute since Paul doesn't qualify other than to call the disputes trivial. If a brother moves a fenceline and is adamant than, yes, rather than bringing him to court, despite how right you are, you should rather be wronged according to Paul. That's pretty clear. Of course reconciliation should be sought, there should be ones among the brothers who can settle such disputes. When a non believer makes accusations we have two possibilities, Christ's turn the other cheek or Paul's appeal to Caesar. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I am sure Paul's decision came after a lot of pray throughout the whole time he had been in prison.
|
But now here comes the really thorny question. If there is a lawsuit between Christians, based on this principle you have just laid out that it is better to suffer loss, both parties are equally responsible. Duddy could just as easily have avoided the lawsuit by choosing rather to suffer loss as the LRC could by deciding not to sue. To prevent the lawsuit in this case all you needed was one party to choose to suffer loss rather than have a lawsuit. Neither party did that. Hence they will both have to stand before the Lord's judgement seat and answer for it.