# Adiaphora and the Sovereignty of God



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 1, 2007)

How can we believe in things indifferent, and still claim that we believe that God is sovereign and His word governs all things?

Surely things are either good - in conformity to God's sovereign law-word - or they are bad in that they are not conformed to his law.

Please: No Quotes From Reformers and Puritans (or anyone else) I want a Biblical discussion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 1, 2007)

That's a good question. Interested to see how this plays out.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 1, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> How can we believe in things indifferent, and still claim that we believe that God is sovereign and His word governs all things?
> 
> Surely things are either good - in conformity to God's sovereign law-word - or they are bad in that they are not conformed to his law.
> 
> Please: No Quotes From Reformers and Puritans (or anyone else) I want a Biblical discussion.



Words mean different things in different contexts. When someone speaks of things indifferent, they are basically saying that the options are all within God's law (Revealed through special and general revelation). I do not think people are attempting to say that there is an area where God is not involved.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 1, 2007)

It is helpful to think in terms of the OT categories of holy and unholy. 

For example: the Sabbath is called holy by God which implies, in a certain sense, that the other days are not holy, or common. That does not mean that we do as we please the rest of the week, but simply that the sovereignty of God imposes certain _distinctions_ upon our lives which we must recognize for His glory. 

We may call certain things 'indifferent' only because God's law does not or no longer specifically apply(ies) to that case though it is clear that _the Lord_ is making these distinctions and thus we, in light of His sovereign rule, are simply submitting to His word.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 1, 2007)

Poimen said:


> It is helpful to think in terms of the OT categories of holy and unholy.
> 
> For example: the Sabbath is called holy by God which implies, in a certain sense, that the other days are not holy, or common. That does not mean that we do as we please the rest of the week, but simply that the sovereignty of God imposes certain _distinctions_ upon our lives which we must recognize for His glory.
> 
> We may call certain things 'indifferent' only because God's law does not or no longer specifically apply(ies) to that case though it is clear that _the Lord_ is making these distinctions and thus we, in light of His sovereign rule, are simply submitting to His word.




I recognise what you are saying about distinctions between common and holy that God has sovereignly made; however, I suppose what I am getting at is people saying things like "food is indifferent", but surely this is wrong as food is a positive good (1 Tim. 4).


----------



## Poimen (Dec 1, 2007)

Food is indifferent in light of the distinctions that God makes but that does not abrogate His blessing of everything we put in our mouths.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 1, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Food is indifferent in light of the distinctions that God makes but that does not abrogate His blessing of everything we put in our mouths.



I disagree, it is a positive good, to be used in obedience to the word of God, therefore, it is not indifferent.

People often appeal to Romans 14 to prove adiaphora, but that is illegitimate, as the non-eating or eating of food was a matter of faith. Those of weak faith could not eat. However, Paul does make it clear that there should not be disputes over such small matters, yet there is a difference between saying something is a small issue and saying that it is indifferent.

To illustrate what I am saying, it could be argued that the decision whether or to eat an apple or an orange is not an indifferent one, but a legitimate choice between two ethically good options.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 1, 2007)

I am not sure if you are understanding my point. Please understand, I don't mean to be rude and I am certainly not upset, but I am saying that some things are indifferent because God identifies them as such.

Again, all things are under the sovereign reign of God and thus, by His direction alone, can be said to be 'indifferent'.

Romans 14:1 "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over _doubtful things._"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 1, 2007)

Poimen said:


> I am not sure if you are understanding my point. Please understand, I don't mean to be rude and I am certainly not upset, but I am saying that some things are indifferent because God identifies them as such.
> 
> Again, all things are under the sovereign reign of God and thus, by His direction alone, can be said to be 'indifferent'.
> 
> Romans 14:1 "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over _doubtful things._"



Its okay, I don't think you are being rude; but I disagree that the dispute in Romans 14 is about things indifferent, instead it is a matter of faith, hence Paul refers to people as being "weak in faith"; Paul's point (as I see it) is not that food is indifferent, but that it is only a _small_ matter which believers should not quarrel over.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 1, 2007)




----------



## satz (Dec 1, 2007)

I think when we say the food issue in Romans 14 was one of indifferent, what we mean is that from God's point of view, christians are free to chose if they will eat or not. God does not have an 'opinion' on what they should do. Hence 1 Cor 8:8 tells us that the eating of meat is a choice that cannot commend us to God. No decision we make on the matter can make us either more or less pleasing to him because he has not set forth any laws on the matter. Hence a christian has freedom about whether he eats or does not eat. In this sense the decision is indifferent because whatever choice you make cannot affect your practical holiness before God (off course this freedom is regulated in its use, but in essense it still exists). 

Regarding Romans 14 and faith, I would disagree that food is not an indifferent matter. I think Paul's whole point is that because food is indifferent - not a matter of holiness - that is why christians should not be arguing about it. I think (and am open to correction) that Paul's point about faith comes in for those who are weak in faith, because in their minds there are sinful associations with eating this meat. Hence for them it is a matter of faith because in their minds and consciences they have made it a matter of sin and holiness. However, from God's point of view, the matter is still one of indifference since he has not specified if he wants christians to eat or not to eat.


----------



## satz (Dec 1, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> To illustrate what I am saying, it could be argued that the decision whether or to eat an apple or an orange is not an indifferent one, but a legitimate choice between two ethically good options.



Is this question perhaps one of language? For instance, if there is a legitimate choice between two ethically good options, then don't I have freedom to make either choice since both choices are ethically good? And if I can choice freely between the two, isn't the decision effectively indifferent, since it is not a choice that affects my holiness?



> How can we believe in things indifferent, and still claim that we believe that God is sovereign and His word governs all things?



On that note, is it really true that God's word governs all things without exception? From 1 Tim 3 isn't it rather that God's word governs all things needed to live a life of holiness and good works, not necessarily that it specifically governs every single decision we may make (obviously not forgetting the admonishments to do everything to the glory of God).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 1, 2007)

It seems to me the focus, by Presbyterian theologians at least, as to "things indifferent" has to do with their "use", not their "nature". Thus men such as James Durham and George Gillespie appeal to 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."  



satz said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > To illustrate what I am saying, it could be argued that the decision whether or to eat an apple or an orange is not an indifferent one, but a legitimate choice between two ethically good options.
> ...


----------



## Richard King (Dec 1, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> That's a good question. Interested to see how this plays out.



yeah, what he said!


----------



## Davidius (Dec 1, 2007)

I don't see a direct relationship between ethics and God's governing of all things. That it was part of God's eternal decree that I ate dinner at Macaroni Grill tonight instead of at Olive Garden does not imply that eating at Macaroni Grill is either good or evil.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 2, 2007)

Adiaphora is more a Lutheran concept than Reformed. As I understand it, historically, the Reformed never considered anything adiaphora or indifferent. But they did consider things to fall under liberty of conscience when those things were not spelled out clearly in the Word. So, regarding food, we could say that it is certainly good because God gave it to us to be enjoyed with thanksgiving, but how we use it may be a matter of liberty of conscience, so long as we are not falling into gluttony or imposing our food preferences upon another's conscience as a matter of faith. Same with alcohol or smoking or TV, etc, whatever is not spelled out clearly in Scripture. It's not that it's indifferent, its just that the Christian must be guided by Scriptural principles and his conscience so that he may do all things to the glory of God in his particular situation, which may not be beneficial for other believers in their particular situations, and also recognizing that these differences are legitimate and not a point for division.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Dec 2, 2007)

The 2 classic and sustained passages on _adiaphora_ in the NT are *1 Cor. 8* and *Rom. 14*. They concern (among other things) people who are free to have a _difference of opinion_ about a theological issue.

Take 1 Cor. 8 for example:

[1] There were people in the Corinthian congregation who believed that eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols (which was most if not all meat at Corinth) would spiritually affect them for the worse (v. 7).

[2] Paul says that in his mind that position is wrong. That's because God made everything, and everything God makes is good, including meat (vv. 4-6). (i.e. Evil is not material substance [meat] but the wrong functioning of created substance).

[3] However, Paul won't impose his theological opinion upon those with whom he differs, because:

(i) he knows that given some people's *background *in idolatry (v. 7), they just can't see it from the right perspective

and

(ii) what we eat does not affect our spiritual life (i.e. what goes in our mouth doesn't make us unclean).

Thus, in this way, the eating of idol-meat was an _adiaphoron_ *for Paul*, in the sense that Paul didn't have to agree with those who ate _idol-meat_.

However, what was not an _adiaphoron_, was causing a brother or sister, who believed eating idol-meat was wrong, to eat idol-meat (i.e. contravene their conscience).

In this case correct doctrine ("knowledge", v. 11), when used in the wrong way *can actually "destroy"* (v. 11) a brother or sister.

In other words, correct doctrine is _not enough_. It must be accompanied with _love_, otherwise when used wrongly it can destroy.

Blessings.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I don't see a direct relationship between ethics and God's governing of all things. That it was part of God's eternal decree that I ate dinner at Macaroni Grill tonight instead of at Olive Garden does not imply that eating at Macaroni Grill is either good or evil.



Your eating at Macaroni Grill was good, as long as it did not involve a violation of God's law - i.e. gluttony.

It would also have been good if you had eaten at Olive Garden. The choice was between two ethically good options, not indifferent ones.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

> It seems to me the focus, by Presbyterian theologians at least, as to "things indifferent" has to do with their "use", not their "nature". Thus men such as James Durham and George Gillespie appeal to 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."



Since Paul says they are "lawful" then they are not indifferent; the issue is whether there use is the _best_ option at a particular time and place.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see a direct relationship between ethics and God's governing of all things. That it was part of God's eternal decree that I ate dinner at Macaroni Grill tonight instead of at Olive Garden does not imply that eating at Macaroni Grill is either good or evil.
> ...



Interesting. I want to think about it more.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > CarolinaCalvinist said:
> ...




I had not heard about this argument myself until recently; R.J. Rushdoony has an article on it in his massive volume _Roots of Reconstruction_ which is a load of Chalcedon position papers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > How can we believe in things indifferent, and still claim that we believe that God is sovereign and His word governs all things?
> ...




Recently, I was talking to a Calvinist who teaches in a public school. When I challenged him that Biblical education requires that everything be taught from a Christian perspective he said (in relation to the subject he teaches) "God does not come into it." As far as I am concerned, that is a denial of the sovereignty of God.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Recently, I was talking to a Calvinist who teaches in a public school. When I challenged him that Biblical education requires that everything be taught from a Christian perspective he said (in relation to the subject he teaches) "God does not come into it." As far as I am concerned, that is a denial of the sovereignty of God.



The Book of Esther springs to mind here, where the sovereignty of God is impressed on the narrative rather than expressed in words. I believe this demonstrates that one can teach from a theistic perspective without explicitly mentioning God.

On the thread as a whole, imagine asking us to make this a biblical discussion without bringing the Puritans into it. Isn't this the Puritan board?  Chris Coldwell has already provided the Puritan perspective. William Ames (Conscience) is very clear on this point, where he notes that things indifferent intrinsically are made good or evil circumstantially.

Biblically, it all comes down to one's starting point. One finds in discussions of this kind that the general belief is that all things are permissible until God commands otherwise. Gen. 2:16, 17 shows that freedom is to be found in the permission of God, even prior to the fall. The reason is that man was not made to maintain the status quo, but was eschatologically oriented, and it is only in submission to God that he can fulfil his "chief end." After the fall this eschaological orientation requires soteriology, and so man becomes dependent not only on law to teach him how to order his life, but on grace to give him the power to fulfil the law. The point here (and the Puritan struggle with unconstitutional law helped them to see it better than any) is that whilst God made all things good, the fall makes it possible for good things to be corrupted to evil uses. So everything now, even things inherently neutral like "time," must be "redeemed," Eph. 5:16. Given this biblical worldview, my answer would be that anything that is not redeemed according to the power of grace and the revelation of the divine will necessarily partakes of "this world" and is passing away, and is therefore an "evil" to be shunned by the Christian.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> How can we believe in things indifferent, and still claim that we believe that God is sovereign and His word governs all things?
> 
> Surely things are either good - in conformity to God's sovereign law-word - or they are bad in that they are not conformed to his law.
> 
> Please: No Quotes From Reformers and Puritans (or anyone else) I want a Biblical discussion.



First, I didn't plan on quoting a Reformer but to state that quoting a Reformer makes the discussion "un-Biblical" raises an eyebrow.

Secondly, you're kind of viewing the issue from the wrong angle. It's actually the angle that Paul reproves in Romans 14 where you're only considering what _your_ scruples are concerning a thing and not another's.

I'm obviously convinced that God is not indifferent or unconvinced about anything.

But I'm not God.

The problem is, that when it comes to actual disagreements, we often tend to think that God agrees with us on every particular issue. There are certainly cases where the Scriptures are so clear that it leaves men without excuse for agreeing with the principle. These are the perspicuous elements of the Scriptures that the WCF points to while the WCF agrees with Peter in 2 Peter 3 that not all Scripture is equally plain and may, in fact, be hard to understand.

Of course, some men are so proud that they deny that anything is hard to understand and so they come up with scruples about _everything_ and turn all their scruples into issues that divide the Church.

Romans 14 is not the only place that speaks to an issue over disagreements concerning scruples but does give a proper motivation to the believers. The primary focus, first of all, is that believers become "fully convinced in their own minds..." concerning things that honor God. This is not an excuse for easily settling the issue in your mind but to honor God with as much as you know about Him and as your conscience guides according to the Word. As we are sanctified, some of those scruples will mature.

But then we do not become the judge of those who God is still maturing and point out to them how critical this issue is and, if they don't get on board, you will refuse fellowship with them. There is one Judge who will judge the living and the dead. Paul focuses on food because, compared to the goal of unity of the Church and the fact that your Brother is one for whom Christ died why would we tear down (instead of build up) our brother over something as silly (indifferent if you like) as food.

My motivation, then, toward things indifferent is not that I do anything assuming that God's Word doesn't tell me how I might best honor Him. Rather, it is with the realization that somebody else might be convinced otherwise and it is not something that the peace of the Church needs to be disturbed over. God is sanctifying all His saints at different speeds and in different ways.

If He separated from us over the things we disagree with Him over then all of us whould be surely doomed.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

> First, I didn't plan on quoting a Reformer but to state that quoting a Reformer makes the discussion "un-Biblical" raises an eyebrow.



What I meant was I wanted a discussion based on the Biblical text, not a load of cut and paste quotes from the Reformers, which would descend into endless disputes about precisely what they meant. 



> Secondly, you're kind of viewing the issue from the wrong angle. It's actually the angle that Paul reproves in Romans 14 where you're only considering what your scruples are concerning a thing and not another's.



As I would probably agree with everything else you wrote, I am not sure that I am.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

> The Book of Esther springs to mind here, where the sovereignty of God is impressed on the narrative rather than expressed in words. I believe this demonstrates that one can teach from a theistic perspective without explicitly mentioning God.



The book of Esther does show us the outworking of God's providence in his people's redemption, but what the man that I mentioned was saying is that the subject he was teaching was an area of life where "God doesn't come into it" - i.e. that it was something left to autonomous human reason.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

> On the thread as a whole, imagine asking us to make this a biblical discussion without bringing the Puritans into it. Isn't this the Puritan board?



 Yeah, I guess its a bit like asking the Communist society not to quote from Karl Marx.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 2, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Adiaphora is more a Lutheran concept than Reformed. As I understand it, historically, the Reformed never considered anything adiaphora or indifferent. But they did consider things to fall under liberty of conscience when those things were not spelled out clearly in the Word. So, regarding food, we could say that it is certainly good because God gave it to us to be enjoyed with thanksgiving, but how we use it may be a matter of liberty of conscience, so long as we are not falling into gluttony or imposing our food preferences upon another's conscience as a matter of faith. Same with alcohol or smoking or TV, etc, whatever is not spelled out clearly in Scripture. It's not that it's indifferent, its just that the Christian must be guided by Scriptural principles and his conscience so that he may do all things to the glory of God in his particular situation, which may not be beneficial for other believers in their particular situations, and also recognizing that these differences are legitimate and not a point for division.


Sorry I missed this earlier Patrick. I sort of re-stated what you did and didn't want you to think I just saw your post and thought I had to improve upon it. I didn't even see it.


Daniel Ritchie said:


> > First, I didn't plan on quoting a Reformer but to state that quoting a Reformer makes the discussion "un-Biblical" raises an eyebrow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK then.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Adiaphora is more a Lutheran concept than Reformed. As I understand it, historically, the Reformed never considered anything adiaphora or indifferent. But they did consider things to fall under liberty of conscience when those things were not spelled out clearly in the Word. So, regarding food, we could say that it is certainly good because God gave it to us to be enjoyed with thanksgiving, but how we use it may be a matter of liberty of conscience, so long as we are not falling into gluttony or imposing our food preferences upon another's conscience as a matter of faith. Same with alcohol or smoking or TV, etc, whatever is not spelled out clearly in Scripture. It's not that it's indifferent, its just that the Christian must be guided by Scriptural principles and his conscience so that he may do all things to the glory of God in his particular situation, which may not be beneficial for other believers in their particular situations, and also recognizing that these differences are legitimate and not a point for division.
> ...



No problem.


----------



## MW (Dec 2, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > The Book of Esther springs to mind here, where the sovereignty of God is impressed on the narrative rather than expressed in words. I believe this demonstrates that one can teach from a theistic perspective without explicitly mentioning God.
> 
> 
> 
> The book of Esther does show us the outworking of God's providence in his people's redemption, but what the man that I mentioned was saying is that the subject he was teaching was an area of life where "God doesn't come into it" - i.e. that it was something left to autonomous human reason.



That definitely comes from the dark side. Sorry for misunderstanding.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > The Book of Esther springs to mind here, where the sovereignty of God is impressed on the narrative rather than expressed in words. I believe this demonstrates that one can teach from a theistic perspective without explicitly mentioning God.
> ...



No problem.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 2, 2007)

I've long appreciated J.G. Vos' helpful remarks on adiaphora in _The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life_.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 5, 2007)

I shall abstain from any quotes, but I was just reading David Calderwood, _The Pastor and the Prelate_, p. 61, and he treats the difference in views on things indifferent between the aforementioned two parties very helpfully.


----------

