# Causing your brother to stumble (Romans 14)



## WrittenFromUtopia

> Romans 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.



What is the practical application of this passage in regards to drinking alcohol? What is meant by stumble?

Does Paul contradict himself by saying what he does here in Romans 14 and by what happens at the Jerusalem Church Council (cf. Acts 15)?


----------



## Scott Bushey

I wrote a short, simple paper on the issue here:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/cigars.htm


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I wrote a short, simple paper on the issue here:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/cigars.htm



Good write-up.

A follow up question would be: What if we show weaker brethren in the faith that drinking alcohol is approved of God and considered a blessing from Him, and that we can drink to His glory, according to His guidelines (i.e. not drunkenness or addiction), but they refuse to accept it? Do we continue to abstain?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I wrote a short, simple paper on the issue here:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/cigars.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good write-up.
> 
> A follow up question would be: What if we show weaker brethren in the faith that drinking alcohol is approved of God and considered a blessing from Him, and that we can drink to His glory, according to His guidelines (i.e. not drunkenness or addiction), but they refuse to accept it? Do we continue to abstain?
Click to expand...


I would say no. Our responsibility rests in Gods word alone. This principle is clear; it is not rocket science. In the past, when having to deal with this issue myself, it came down to personal baggage on the student and his disregard for Gods word.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I wrote a short, simple paper on the issue here:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/cigars.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good write-up.
> 
> A follow up question would be: What if we show weaker brethren in the faith that drinking alcohol is approved of God and considered a blessing from Him, and that we can drink to His glory, according to His guidelines (i.e. not drunkenness or addiction), but they refuse to accept it? Do we continue to abstain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say no. Our responsibility rests in Gods word alone. This principle is clear; it is not rocket science. In the past, when having to deal with this issue myself, it came down to personal baggage on the student and his disregard for Gods word.
Click to expand...


To potentially throw a wrench into this scenario...

What if the "weaker brethren" in the faith is your parents?


----------



## Scott Bushey

I would be more patient..............


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I would be more patient..............



Under what circumstances?

If the person is an adult, on their own, etc., what is their responsibility to their parents? How do they approach this in the best manner?

Assume that the parents are Arminian, fundamentalists, and the adult child is Reformed.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This is the opinion of James Durham, from the long and old time Scottish Presbyterian standard work on offense, and in this particular, the use of things indifferent in nature.


> James Durham, _Concerning Scandal_ (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990) 21, 25.
> 
> 
> 
> (2.) If it is indifferent, that is in the matter thereof, such as may be done, or forborne, as eating or not eating such a meat for such a time (for although no action is indifferent when it is done, because the circumstances of end, motive and manner, do determine them either to be good or bad, as they are agreeable or disagreeable to the Law when they are done, yet some actions in themselves are such), in these actions a Christian ought to do or abstain accordingly, as his doing or not doing may edify or give offense. Yea, in such things he may be forever restrained according to that word of Paul.s (_1 Cor. 8:13_), _I had rather not eat flesh while the world stands, than by my meat make my brother to offend._ This is to become all things to all men for their gaining (_1 Cor. 9_), when our practice in such things is conformed to others. edification rather than our own inclination or light. And thus many things which we are persuaded are lawful and we desire to do, are to be forborne out of conscience; conscience, I say, not our own, but of some others that have not such clearness (as _1 Cor. 10:28, 29_).
> "¦
> If it is said, that sufficient pains have been taken to inform them already, and that therefore their taking offense is inexcusable. ANSWER. (1.) Men would beware of making this an excuse, for many have great ignorance and are not soon capable of instruction, others have prejudice which is hard to root out. Therefore I conceive it will not be easy to be able to assert an exoneration in this case. (2.) If the thing continues to be indifferent (which is the matter concerning which the question is) there can be no term to it. It is the Apostle's word (_1 Cor. 8:13_), _If meat make my brother to offend, I will not eat flesh while the World stands._ If the case alters and the matter becomes necessary by some circumstances, as _Daniel´s_ opening of his window did, then that which formerly was indifferent, becomes necessary, and it would be offensive to omit it.
Click to expand...


----------



## turmeric

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I would be more patient..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under what circumstances?
> 
> If the person is an adult, on their own, etc., what is their responsibility to their parents? How do they approach this in the best manner?
> 
> Assume that the parents are Arminian, fundamentalists, and the adult child is Reformed.
Click to expand...


I think this comes under the 5th Commandment...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Am I not dishonoring my parents by being Reformed Presbyterian, then? I don't see the difference between that as a Biblical conviction and drinking alcohol or other issues of Christian witness.


----------



## turmeric

I just mean don't drink around them. What you do when they're not there won't dishonour them


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Would not a pastor-teacher be more liable to cause the weak in faith to stumble on an ongoing basis?

The weak in faith continually come to in contact with churches and pastors in order to be discipled. The weak in faith, not understanding their liberties in Christ, find out the pastor occasionally smokes cigars, then they respond to such by either considering a different church over it or stumbles in some other way, perhaps avoiding church altogether. Considering the numerous amounts of contact that pastors and elders have with the weak in faith, shouldn't these officers abstain more than those not in such high offices?


----------



## Arch2k

Gabe,

I think this comes down to this section from Durham:



> If it is indifferent, that is in the matter thereof, such as may be done, or forborne, as eating or not eating such a meat for such a time (for although no action is indifferent when it is done



Drinking spirits are indifferent. While these are pleasures in life, and we should enjoy them to the glory of the Lord, because they are not necessary to be done in everyday life (except in case of the Lord's supper), we should be careful not to cause others to stumble by our actions.

All things should be done *primarily* for edification. 

That being said, I think that more discussion needs to happen around what it means to "cause a brother to stumble." Does this mean to make him mad by your actions? I don't think so. I believe it means to make him to sin AGAINST HIS conscience. In other words, in this situation, it would be sin for the son to drink in front of his parents if they believed it to be wrong to do so (and here's the key In my humble opinion) and THEY were tempted to drink against their conscience BY the son's liberty.

If the son is expressing his Christian liberty by drinking in front of his parents and it merely upsets them (i.e. they think it is sin for him) then that is one thing. To cause them to stumble by drinking against their conscience is another.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> The weak in faith, not understanding their liberties in Christ, find out the pastor occasionally smokes cigars, then they respond to such by either considering a different church over it or stumbles in some other way, perhaps avoiding church altogether.



I don't believe this is what Paul means when he speaks of "causing a brother to stumble." If so, how are we to imagine all of the possibilities and weird ideas that people have? In that case, a pastor shouldn't eat because people might think that eating is wrong (and gluttony IS sin), and he shouldn't sit down because of laziness. The list can go on and on. 

Just because people think that it is wrong to do certain things is no reason for those who realize their Liberty in Christ not to do them. It is for the sake of the WEAK that we obstain. It is wrong for a Christian to intentionally drink around a person with an alcohol problem. It is wrong for us to stuff ourselves and tempt a person with a glutton. It is wrong for us to smoke around a person who believes it is wrong, but desperately wants to smoke one anyway.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Thank you, Jeff.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeff, I disagree. All believers have the HS indwelling. It is not I whom hold them up.

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: *for God is able to make him stand.*


I am concious of their weakness, however, God forbid my conscience is bound because they may indulge themselves in a sinful thing that I have freedom in. 

1 Cor 10:30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?


The apostle definately aludes to the fact that they are weak in faith. 

If one looks to the beginning of Romans chapter 14, one find that these brethren are weak in faith.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.


Paul is implying that this is a young believer; his knowledge base is shallow. He does not know he has freedom to eat the meat that had been offered to idols. 

1 Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1 Cor 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.


----------



## Arch2k

Scott,

What do you think it means to "cause a brother to stumble"?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Assume that the parents are Arminian, fundamentalists, and the adult child is Reformed.



This statement has the possibility of throwing a different twist on the situation as well given that the parents are Arminian (like mine). I do not consider my parents to be "brethren." They are actually borderline Pelagian. If that is the case in this scenerio, all of the rules in Rom. 14 may not apply.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Good thoughts, Joshua.

In case it wasn't readily apparent, I am dealing with this situation (and losing all support from my parents) right now. Please pray.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Good thoughts, Joshua.
> 
> In case it wasn't readily apparent, I am dealing with this situation (and losing all support from my parents) right now. Please pray.



Gabriel,

I will pray for you tonight. I would say that if drinking is causing a strain on your relationship with your parents, and impairing your witness, you should refrain. But you should not be expected to compromise on core gospel issues (as I assume you would have to in order to please your parents regarding church).


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ditto to Fred and Josh
As I have suggested as well.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Good thoughts, Joshua.
> 
> In case it wasn't readily apparent, I am dealing with this situation (and losing all support from my parents) right now. Please pray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gabriel,
> 
> I will pray for you tonight. I would say that if drinking is causing a strain on your relationship with your parents, and impairing your witness, you should refrain. But you should not be expected to compromise on core gospel issues (as I assume you would have to in order to please your parents regarding church).
Click to expand...


Well, the situation is complicated (in my mind, maybe not in reality), as I live in Louisville on my own with two other people. My parents live 700 miles away where I grew up. I see my family 2 times a year on average, as I spend the rest of my time in school and at work (taking 18 credit hours this semester plus work), as I am trying to finish my BA (after switching schools and degree plans 3 times) as soon as possible and, Lord-willing, on to Seminary. Do I refrain when I am with my family (which I would anyway, and have for the last year, it is just they didn't know I drank until recently - I might as well have raped a girl in their mind, according to the culture I grew up in), or altogether? After this year, I will basically be completely cut-off from them and on my own, as I will be under care of an RPCNA Presbytery, Lord willing, and pursuing ministry in some capacity. However, at this time, they are supporting me financially for tuition and misc. costs.

I still do not know how they are going to react to the 'rationale' I replied to them with (they e-mailed me about this 2 days ago, in disappointment), where I did my best to show them as clearly and respectfully as possible, how the Bible views alcohol and its implications, etc. (all the while emphasizing the true gospel and God's grace/sovereignty, etc.). So, really, I am waiting to see what happens. In the meantime, I'm going through every possible reaction in my head and stressing out a great deal.

Ugh.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Scott,
> 
> What do you think it means to "cause a brother to stumble"?



Jeff,
In context, "stumbling" would be defined as inciting someone to act against their conscience (which is in fact sin). 

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Scott,
> 
> What do you think it means to "cause a brother to stumble"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> In context, "stumbling" would be defined as inciting someone to act against their conscience (which is in fact sin).
> 
> Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Click to expand...


So, if your eating (or drinking in this case) causes a person who _believes it is wrong to drink_, to act against his conscience, and drink anyway, that is sin, and is the thrust of this passage...correct?

Where exactly do we disagree?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeff,
You previously wrote:



> It is wrong for a Christian to intentionally drink around a person with an alcohol problem. It is wrong for us to stuff ourselves and tempt a person with a glutton. It is wrong for us to smoke around a person who believes it is wrong, but desperately wants to smoke one anyway.



I disagree with this type of thinking in light of what I previously stated. I agree that the believer should _temporarily_ suspend his freedom in search of educating the weaker bretheren only; but then after thoroughly exhausting this avenue, again take advantage of the blessings Gods word allows. To do otherwise would be as sinful. 

If a person believes that I am erroneously bound to the sabbath and by keeping it I am being _legalistic_, denying what they believe Christ alleviated and since their understanding of the sabbath is skewed ("Christ is our sabbath"), should I abstain from this as well or should I educate the person?


----------



## fredtgreco

There is a huge difference between abstaining from an allowable adiaphora and disobeying a commandment of God.

Scott, if what you say is true, why does Paul say that he will eat flesh while the world stands, than by my meat make my brother to offend? And why does Durham (and the standard Reformed interpretation agree with him?

It would seem that Paul should have said - I will not eat meat until I have given a really good go of it, but if the weaker brother doesn't get it, then too bad for him...


----------



## Arch2k

Scott,

My whole point is that Romans 14 is addressing _causing a person to stumble by your liberty._ 

Just because somebody believes it is morally wrong to drink....I have a beer around them....it merely makes them upset, or makes them think "how could a christian do such a thing!"......I do not believe this is what Paul speaks of by causing a brother to stumble.

How did this brother stumble? Is getting angry stumbling? Is thinking "this is no way for a christian to act" stumbling?

I believe that causing a brother to stumble is as you say, causing them to do somthing (i.e. drinking) when they believe it is wrong. The only way you could do that is if they are tempted to drink against their conscience.

I also believe that we should attempt to walk in peace as Paul goes on to say, and should not use our liberty to throw in one's face.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

The ESV notes on vs. 21:



> 14:21 Some manuscripts add _or be hindered or be weakened_


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> There is a huge difference between abstaining from an allowable adiaphora and disobeying a commandment of God.
> 
> Scott, if what you say is true, why does Paul say that he will eat flesh while the world stands, than by my meat make my brother to offend? And why does Durham (and the standard Reformed interpretation agree with him?
> 
> It would seem that Paul should have said - I will not eat meat until I have given a really good go of it, but if the weaker brother doesn't get it, then too bad for him...



Fred,
I am not arguing that one should not abstain. I agree. However, As Paul mentions, this believer is weak in faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. This believer needs to be educated. How long shall my conscience be bound by this brothers weakness? It should be bound as long as it takes to aleviate the degree of blindness. If in fact the person rejects the clear teaching of scripture, I am no longer bound.

Jeff,
It seems we agree.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> There is a huge difference between abstaining from an allowable adiaphora and disobeying a commandment of God.
> 
> Scott, if what you say is true, why does Paul say that he will eat flesh while the world stands, than by my meat make my brother to offend? And why does Durham (and the standard Reformed interpretation agree with him?
> 
> It would seem that Paul should have said - I will not eat meat until I have given a really good go of it, but if the weaker brother doesn't get it, then too bad for him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred,
> I am not arguing that one should not abstain. I agree. However, As Paul mentions, this believer is weak in faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. This believer needs to be educated. How long shall my conscience be bound by this brothers weakness? It should be bound as long as it takes to aleviate the degree of blindness. If in fact the person rejects the clear teaching of scripture, I am no longer bound.
Click to expand...


Scott,

If that is the case, then why does Paul say the exact opposite? What you say makes _sense_, but it is contrary to the _express_ teaching of Scripture, in which Paul says "if food makes my brother stumble, I will *never again* eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

He does not say until my brother makes clear that he has rejected Scripture. He says never. Does never mean something else to you?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I understand your point, Fred, but my problem is what is meant by "stumble?"


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
OK. Reconcile this along with the fact that we believers have liberty. If we follow your line of thinking, then we should not do anything, as there is always a possibility to stumble someone.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I understand your point, Fred, but my problem is what is meant by "stumble?"



G4624
ÏƒÎºÎ±Î½Î´Î±Î»Î¹ÌÎ¶Ï‰
skandalizoÌ„
skan-dal-id'-zo
To "œscandalize"; from G4625; to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or *entice to sin*, apostasy or displeasure): - (make to) offend.


----------



## Saiph

We should try not to entice each other to sin, but lets face it, we all do. The key is repentance when we do and reconciliation with the offended brother. 

I drink beer with some friends and coffee with others for that reason.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Okay, so does that mean to entice to sin as in becoming a drunk or entice to sin as in going against conscience?


----------



## Saiph

total abstinence is easier than perfect moderation for some.

When in doubt if an action be just, abstain.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> total abstinence is easier than perfect moderation for some.
> 
> When in doubt if an action be just, abstain.



Mark,
There is always a doubt; surely Christ knew this. He made wine. Could this have stumbled someone? If we follow the same line of thinking that is being brought to the table here, Christ was in error. Since there is always the chance of stumbling, how can one reconcile this alongside our freedom. Somethings missing here.....


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

As Martin Luther would say ...

The Stars, Women, and Wine can all be abused and lead us into sin. Should we ask God to remove the stars from the sky, take all women away and destroy all wine? Of course not! We should enjoy these blessings according to God's commandments and without sin.


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott,

As usual, Calvin is extremely instructive in his comments here:



> 13. Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend. With the view of reproving more severely their disdainful liberty, he declares, that we ought not merely to refrain from a single banquet rather than injure a brother, but ought to give up the eating of meats during our whole life. Nor does he merely prescribe what ought to be done, but declares that he would himself act in this way. The expression, it is true, is hyperbolical, as it is scarcely possible that one should refrain from eating flesh during his whole life, if he remain in common life;7 but his meaning is, that he would rather make no use of his liberty in any instance, than be an occasion of offense to the weak. For participation is in no case lawful, unless it be regulated by the rule of love. Would that this were duly pondered by those who make everything subservient to their own advantage, so that they cannot endure to give up so much as a hair's-breadth of their own right for the sake of their brethren; and that they would attend not merely to what Paul teaches, but also to what he marks out by his own example! How greatly superior he is to us! When he, then, makes no hesitation in subjecting himself thus far to his brethren, which of us would not submit to the same condition?
> 
> But, however difficult it is to act up to this doctrine, so far as the meaning is concerned, his easy, were it not that some have corrupted it by foolish glosses, and others by wicked calumnies. Both classes err as to the meaning of the word offend. For they understand the word offend to mean, incurring the hatred or displeasure of men, or what is nearly the same thing, doing what displeases them, or is not altogether agreeable to them. *But it appears very manifestly from the context, that it means simply to hinder a brother by bad example (as an obstacle thrown in his way) from the right course, or to give him occasion of falling. *Paul, therefore, is not here treating of the retaining of the favor of men, but of the assisting of the weak, so as to prevent their falling, and prudently directing them, that they may not turn aside from the right path. But (as I have said) the former class are foolish, while the latter are also wicked and impudent. (emphasis added)



Matthew Henry makes much the same point:



> IV. He enforces all with his own example (v. 13): Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. He does not say that he will never eat more. This were to destroy himself, and to commit a heinous sin, to prevent the sin and fall of a brother. Such evil must not be done that good may come of it. But, though it was necessary to eat, it was not necessary to eat flesh. And therefore, rather than occasion sin in a brother, he would abstain from it as long as he lived. *He had such a value for the soul of his brother that he would willingly deny himself in a matter of liberty, and forbear any particular food, which he might have lawfully eaten and might like to eat, rather than lay a stumbling-block in a weak brother's way, and occasion him to sin, by following his example, without being clear in his mind whether it were lawful or no*. Note, We should be very tender of doing any thing that may be an occasion of stumbling to others, though it may be innocent in itself. Liberty is valuable, but the weakness of a brother should induce, and sometimes bind, us to waive it. We must not rigorously claim nor use our own rights, to the hurt and ruin of a brother's soul, and so to the in jury of our Redeemer, who died for him. *When it is certainly foreseen that my doing what I may forbear will occasion a fellow-christian to do what he ought to forbear, I shall offend, scandalize, or lay a stumbling-block in his way, which to do is a sin, however lawful the thing itself be which is done.* And, if we must be so careful not to occasion other men's sins, how careful should we be to avoid sin ourselves! If we must not endanger other men's souls, how much should we be concerned not to destroy our own! (emphasis added)



I really think it is quite simple: think of others before yourself. The point is that wine, food, cigars, etc are of absolutely no spiritual value. They are indifferent. If the legitimate use of them causes sin in your brother, than you refrain. You can try and justify it by saying that you are stronger, and they should "get it" but that does not matter. That is why Paul is so emphatic: NEVER.


----------



## fredtgreco

Which is more important: your drink, or the offense of God against sin? Are you more important than God?


----------



## pastorway

I ditto all that Fred has posted.

Paul did not value his liberty above the wellbeing of weaker saints. He was willing to never eat meat or drink wine again if it would cause some to stumble or offend their conscience. He was that radical in his application of "esteem all others as better than yourself."

It is not about me and my liberty. That is pure individualism. It is about fellowhip in the body, edifying one another (even the weakest among us), and loving each other to the point that we willingly lay aside a liberty (not a right, but a freeedom) for the sake of others.

To hold on to liberty and let the weaker brother be damned (even after trying to convince them of truth) is to fail to make disciples, to fail to love as we ought, and suggests a completely wrong view of Christian liberty in the first place.

In this case with Gabriel, since his parents are supporting him financially he is still very much under their charge, even though not living in the same house. My counsel would be to honor them (which is a direct command of Scripture) and abstain from alcohol until such time that he is either legitimately on his own or has been given an okay by them to engage in drinking alcohol. I would tell them that the choice is to abstain and explain that you believe this is amn area of liberty that you will set aside in order to promote honor and harmony in the family - to "as much as depends on you, be at peace with all men."

If you cannot give up alcohol for the sake of honoring and being at unity in this area with your parents, then frankly, you have a problem and should likely abstain for other reasons.

And if anyone thinks this issue is worth dishonoring parents and even driving a wedge in the realtionship with them, then woe to that person.

Some of us here know what it is to be completely cut off from family for the sake of the gospel - and the topic of alcohol should never be put on such a level. The freedom to drink is not worth the loss of familial relationships.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Scott,
> 
> As usual, Calvin is extremely instructive in his comments here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13. Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend. With the view of reproving more severely their disdainful liberty, he declares, that we ought not merely to refrain from a single banquet rather than injure a brother, but ought to give up the eating of meats during our whole life. Nor does he merely prescribe what ought to be done, but declares that he would himself act in this way. The expression, it is true, is hyperbolical, as it is scarcely possible that one should refrain from eating flesh during his whole life, if he remain in common life;7 but his meaning is, that he would rather make no use of his liberty in any instance, than be an occasion of offense to the weak. For participation is in no case lawful, unless it be regulated by the rule of love. Would that this were duly pondered by those who make everything subservient to their own advantage, so that they cannot endure to give up so much as a hair's-breadth of their own right for the sake of their brethren; and that they would attend not merely to what Paul teaches, but also to what he marks out by his own example! How greatly superior he is to us! When he, then, makes no hesitation in subjecting himself thus far to his brethren, which of us would not submit to the same condition?
> 
> But, however difficult it is to act up to this doctrine, so far as the meaning is concerned, his easy, were it not that some have corrupted it by foolish glosses, and others by wicked calumnies. Both classes err as to the meaning of the word offend. For they understand the word offend to mean, incurring the hatred or displeasure of men, or what is nearly the same thing, doing what displeases them, or is not altogether agreeable to them. *But it appears very manifestly from the context, that it means simply to hinder a brother by bad example (as an obstacle thrown in his way) from the right course, or to give him occasion of falling. *Paul, therefore, is not here treating of the retaining of the favor of men, but of the assisting of the weak, so as to prevent their falling, and prudently directing them, that they may not turn aside from the right path. But (as I have said) the former class are foolish, while the latter are also wicked and impudent. (emphasis added)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Henry makes much the same point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IV. He enforces all with his own example (v. 13): Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. He does not say that he will never eat more. This were to destroy himself, and to commit a heinous sin, to prevent the sin and fall of a brother. Such evil must not be done that good may come of it. But, though it was necessary to eat, it was not necessary to eat flesh. And therefore, rather than occasion sin in a brother, he would abstain from it as long as he lived. *He had such a value for the soul of his brother that he would willingly deny himself in a matter of liberty, and forbear any particular food, which he might have lawfully eaten and might like to eat, rather than lay a stumbling-block in a weak brother's way, and occasion him to sin, by following his example, without being clear in his mind whether it were lawful or no*. Note, We should be very tender of doing any thing that may be an occasion of stumbling to others, though it may be innocent in itself. Liberty is valuable, but the weakness of a brother should induce, and sometimes bind, us to waive it. We must not rigorously claim nor use our own rights, to the hurt and ruin of a brother's soul, and so to the in jury of our Redeemer, who died for him. *When it is certainly foreseen that my doing what I may forbear will occasion a fellow-christian to do what he ought to forbear, I shall offend, scandalize, or lay a stumbling-block in his way, which to do is a sin, however lawful the thing itself be which is done.* And, if we must be so careful not to occasion other men's sins, how careful should we be to avoid sin ourselves! If we must not endanger other men's souls, how much should we be concerned not to destroy our own! (emphasis added)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really think it is quite simple: think of others before yourself. The point is that wine, food, cigars, etc are of absolutely no spiritual value. They are indifferent. If the legitimate use of them causes sin in your brother, than you refrain. You can try and justify it by saying that you are stronger, and they should "get it" but that does not matter. That is why Paul is so emphatic: NEVER.
Click to expand...


Fred,
OK. Help me reconcile that in light of our freedom as well as Christs miracle, because what you pose is that we should then abstain, period, because there is always a chance or doubt.


----------



## pastorway

Scott, it is not about offending an anonymous weaker brother. The fact is that we are to have such close fellowship within the body of Christ that we know each others weakenesses and strive to avoid causing them to stumble.

In this case, it is a family member and we know it offends them. In my mind then it should be case closed. Sumbit to them and abstain.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I ditto all that Fred has posted.
> 
> Paul did not value his liberty above the wellbeing of weaker saints. He was willing to never eat meat or drink wine again if it would cause some to stumble or offend their conscience. He was that radical in his application of "esteem all others as better than yourself."
> 
> It is not about me and my liberty. That is pure individualism. It is about fellowhip in the body, edifying one another (even the weakest among us), and loving each other to the point that we willingly lay aside a liberty (not a right, but a freeedom) for the sake of others.
> 
> To hold on to liberty and let the weaker brother be damned (even after trying to convince them of truth) is to fail to make disciples, to fail to love as we ought, and suggests a completely wrong view of Christian liberty in the first place.
> 
> In this case with Gabriel, since his parents are supporting him financially he is still very much under their charge, even though not living in the same house. My counsel would be to honor them (which is a direct command of Scripture) and abstain from alcohol until such time that he is either legitimately on his own or has been given an okay by them to engage in drinking alcohol. I would tell them that the choice is to abstain and explain that you believe this is amn area of liberty that you will set aside in order to promote honor and harmony in the family - to "as much as depends on you, be at peace with all men."
> 
> If you cannot give up alcohol for the sake of honoring and being at unity in this area with your parents, then frankly, you have a problem and should likely abstain for other reasons.
> 
> And if anyone thinks this issue is worth dishonoring parents and even driving a wedge in the realtionship with them, then woe to that person.
> 
> Some of us here know what it is to be completely cut off from family for the sake of the gospel - and the topic of alcohol should never be put on such a level. The freedom to drink is not worth the loss of familial relationships.
> 
> Phillip



Phillip,
As well, and I am not implying you mean to do this, but we should not denigrate the freedom that we have in Christ! He has given it to us for a purpose. I am not trying to push individualism; you know me better than that. I agree there is a balance. Fred is saying that Paul used the term 'never'. If it is 'never', we have no freedom.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Scott, it is not about offending an anonymous weaker brother. The fact is that we are to have such close fellowship within the body of Christ that we know each others weakenesses and strive to avoid causing them to stumble.
> 
> In this case, it is a family member and we know it offends them. In my mind then it should be case closed. Sumbit to them and abstain.
> 
> Phillip



For the record, that was my councel 2 pages back. Honoring my parents would be more important than a drink or smoke.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> OK. Help me reconcile that in light of our freedom as well as Christs miracle, because what you pose is that we should then abstain, period, because there is always a chance or doubt.



No. That does not mean that we always abstain. It just means that we need to know the context, and if we are unsure about the context, we make sure before we partake.

So in Christ's day, the use of wine was widely accepted and common. I doubt that there were any outside of a small group of cults that forbade wine. It was a fact of life in that time when water was bad, and unfermented juice unthinkable. (Aside: anyone who thinks that the "fruit of the vine" was unfermented has not tried to drink a container of Welch's after keeping it outside in the 90 degree heat for a couple of days.) So there was no reason for stumbling.

Providentially, we now live in a time in which abstinance is popular in Christian circles. Should we work to make the view more Biblical? Yes. But in the meantime, we need to be careful not to cause sin.

There are plenty of occasions when there is no doubt. Like right now, when I am home alone with my wife. Or if you came over. Or if I was with any number of friends. But if I met a Christian man for the first time, I would attempt to determine whether his conscience was bound before partaking. And if I KNEW that he was of the sort to stumble or be offended, then I would sacrifice my liberty with him for the next 40 years rather than cause him to sin.


----------



## pastorway

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> For the record, that was my councel 2 pages back. Honoring my parents would be more important than a drink or smoke.



I know. But we have 2 debates going here in the same thread - the first is what should Gabe do. The second is what does the passage from Romans 14 mean for us all. I just want to be sure that in the midst of the debate we all see that the same advise is being given.

In this specific case, abstain.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> As well, and I am not implying you mean to do this, but we should not denigrate the freedom that we have in Christ! He has given it to us for a purpose. I am not trying to push individualism; you know me better than that. I agree there is a balance. Fred is saying that Paul used the term 'never'. If it is 'never', we have no freedom.



Scott,

The never is in a clear context:



> 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,* if food makes my brother stumble*,



It is not an absolute never, but a contextual never.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Scott, it is not about offending an anonymous weaker brother. The fact is that we are to have such close fellowship within the body of Christ that we know each others weakenesses and strive to avoid causing them to stumble.
> 
> In this case, it is a family member and we know it offends them. In my mind then it should be case closed. Sumbit to them and abstain.
> 
> Phillip



Isn't "offending" different than causing one to stumble? Many neutral actions offend people all of the time, but I don't see being offended as sin or stumbling.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Scott, it is not about offending an anonymous weaker brother. The fact is that we are to have such close fellowship within the body of Christ that we know each others weakenesses and strive to avoid causing them to stumble.
> 
> In this case, it is a family member and we know it offends them. In my mind then it should be case closed. Sumbit to them and abstain.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't "offending" different than causing one to stumble? Many neutral actions offend people all of the time, but I don't see being offended as sin or stumbling.
Click to expand...


It is both. It is an offense that causes one to sin. That is exactly the case here: specifically, the offense to Gabe's parents cause them to sin - i.e. call evil what God has called good, judge Gabe with an extra-Biblical judgment, etc.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Scott, it is not about offending an anonymous weaker brother. The fact is that we are to have such close fellowship within the body of Christ that we know each others weakenesses and strive to avoid causing them to stumble.
> 
> In this case, it is a family member and we know it offends them. In my mind then it should be case closed. Sumbit to them and abstain.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't "offending" different than causing one to stumble? Many neutral actions offend people all of the time, but I don't see being offended as sin or stumbling.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is both. It is an offense that causes one to sin. That is exactly the case here: specifically, the offense to Gabe's parents cause them to sin - i.e. call evil what God has called good, judge Gabe with an extra-Biblical judgment, etc.
Click to expand...


I am NOT saying that Gabe should drink, regardless of what his parents think.

...but regarding the above, wouldn't his parents have the same judgment theoritically? Their beliefs are the same regardless if one drinks in front of them are not. Regardless if they judge Gabe or not, they judge the idea the same, it's just the application that differs...no?

I guess I still don't see this as "causing them to stumble." 

Care to clarify?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> ...but regarding the above, wouldn't his parents have the same judgment theoritically? Their beliefs are the same regardless if one drinks in front of them are not. Regardless if they judge Gabe or not, they judge the idea the same, it's just the application that differs...no?
> 
> I guess I still don't see this as "causing them to stumble."
> 
> Care to clarify?



Jeff,

You've got to help me here. I honestly have no idea what you are saying.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> For the record, that was my councel 2 pages back. Honoring my parents would be more important than a drink or smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. But we have 2 debates going here in the same thread - the first is what should Gabe do. The second is what does the passage from Romans 14 mean for us all. I just want to be sure that in the midst of the debate we all see that the same advise is being given.
> 
> In this specific case, abstain.
> 
> Phillip
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> As well, and I am not implying you mean to do this, but we should not denigrate the freedom that we have in Christ! He has given it to us for a purpose. I am not trying to push individualism; you know me better than that. I agree there is a balance. Fred is saying that Paul used the term 'never'. If it is 'never', we have no freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The never is in a clear context:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,* if food makes my brother stumble*,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an absolute never, but a contextual never.
Click to expand...


So, for the record, it is only applicable if one _knows_ that the issue could stumble someone? This seems superficial to a degree.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> As well, and I am not implying you mean to do this, but we should not denigrate the freedom that we have in Christ! He has given it to us for a purpose. I am not trying to push individualism; you know me better than that. I agree there is a balance. Fred is saying that Paul used the term 'never'. If it is 'never', we have no freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The never is in a clear context:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,* if food makes my brother stumble*,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an absolute never, but a contextual never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, for the record, it is only applicable if one _knows_ that the issue could stumble someone? This seems superficial to a degree.
Click to expand...


No. I thought I was being clear. There are three possible options.

1. Always abstain
2. Abstain only when you know it will cause stumbling.
3. Abstain when you know it will cause stumbling, or are unsure whether it will. (i.e. only partake when you know it will not cause stumbling)

I was describing #3.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> As well, and I am not implying you mean to do this, but we should not denigrate the freedom that we have in Christ! He has given it to us for a purpose. I am not trying to push individualism; you know me better than that. I agree there is a balance. Fred is saying that Paul used the term 'never'. If it is 'never', we have no freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The never is in a clear context:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore,* if food makes my brother stumble*,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an absolute never, but a contextual never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, for the record, it is only applicable if one _knows_ that the issue could stumble someone? This seems superficial to a degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I thought I was being clear. There are three possible options.
> 
> 1. Always abstain
> 2. Abstain only when you know it will cause stumbling.
> 3. Abstain when you know it will cause stumbling, or are unsure whether it will. (i.e. only partake when you know it will not cause stumbling)
> 
> I was describing #3.
Click to expand...


OK. In that case, we should always abstain then. If their is a hint of possibility, then a believer shoud abstain. Where's the freedom? And what about Christs miracle? Was it ok for Him because of his omniscience?

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph

The freedom comes in that we SHOULD admonish our brethren on what freedoms they do have if they are tending towards legalism.
So really it becomes a judgment call between, is my brother genuinely tempted by x, or is he being legalistic ?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. In that case, we should always abstain then. If their is a hint of possibility, then a believer shoud abstain. Where's the freedom? And what about Christs miracle? Was it ok for Him because of his omniscience?
> 
> [Edited on 10-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]



No. I am asking you to simply use your common sense like you would in a myriad of other situations. Why does the choice have to be between partake no matter what and always abstain?

I could just as easily turn your comment on you: how do you *know* when someone "rejects the clear teaching of scripture," and you are "no longer bound" ? Do you need Christ's omniscience? Where in Scripture do you get the criteria? Is it when you explain the Biblical doctrine once? Twice? Seven times? Seventy times seven? Your position is even vaguer than you say mine is.


----------



## Saiph

Right.

Wisdom.

Solomon faced with the two mothers and one dead and one living baby.

No law explicitly layed out what he should do there.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. In that case, we should always abstain then. If their is a hint of possibility, then a believer shoud abstain. Where's the freedom? And what about Christs miracle? Was it ok for Him because of his omniscience?
> 
> [Edited on 10-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am asking you to simply use your common sense like you would in a myriad of other situations. Why does the choice have to be between partake no matter what and always abstain?
> 
> I could just as easily turn your comment on you: how do you *know* when someone "rejects the clear teaching of scripture," and you are "no longer bound" ? Do you need Christ's omniscience? Where in Scripture do you get the criteria? Is it when you explain the Biblical doctrine once? Twice? Seven times? Seventy times seven? Your position is even vaguer than you say mine is.
Click to expand...


The criteria is patiently and lovingly. I would abstain for the time it would take to get a hold of whether the person was truly convicted or (as Mark states) being legalistic solely. Paul says that this persons faith is _weak_; how is faith enhanced? By Gods word! It is the word that sets one free.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. In that case, we should always abstain then. If their is a hint of possibility, then a believer shoud abstain. Where's the freedom? And what about Christs miracle? Was it ok for Him because of his omniscience?
> 
> [Edited on 10-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am asking you to simply use your common sense like you would in a myriad of other situations. Why does the choice have to be between partake no matter what and always abstain?
> 
> I could just as easily turn your comment on you: how do you *know* when someone "rejects the clear teaching of scripture," and you are "no longer bound" ? Do you need Christ's omniscience? Where in Scripture do you get the criteria? Is it when you explain the Biblical doctrine once? Twice? Seven times? Seventy times seven? Your position is even vaguer than you say mine is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The criteria is patiently and lovingly. I would abstain for the time it would take to get a hold of whether the person was truly convicted or (as Mark states) being legalistic solely. Paul says that this persons faith is _weak_; how is faith enhanced? By Gods word! It is the word that sets one free.
Click to expand...


Legalism is a weakness. You are correct - the Word is what sets one free. That is what Paul is saying: keep bringing the Word, but if one's actions (i.e. partaking) get in the way of the Word (i.e. cause one to stumble) then he would *never* (that word again) partake.

You still have not told me what never means when it doesn't mean never.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Right.
> 
> Wisdom.
> 
> Solomon faced with the two mothers and one dead and one living baby.
> 
> No law explicitly layed out what he should do there.



Mark,
There was an explicit law laid out; Thou shall not commit murder. Solomon knew this.


----------



## Saiph

> There was an explicit law laid out; Thou shall not commit murder. Solomon knew this.



Yes, but he had to use wisdom to apply it to the situation at hand. . .and did that by offering murder as a solution, to determine the guilty party.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> There was an explicit law laid out; Thou shall not commit murder. Solomon knew this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but he had to use wisdom to apply it to the situation at hand. . .and did that by offering murder as a solution, to determine the guilty party.
Click to expand...


Mark,
With all due respect, I disagree. The wisdom that Solomon had was rooted in the _fear of the Lord_; there has never been a wiser man. In this wisdom, Solomon knew that murder was not an option and by faith he trusted God would prevail in this scenario.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. In that case, we should always abstain then. If their is a hint of possibility, then a believer shoud abstain. Where's the freedom? And what about Christs miracle? Was it ok for Him because of his omniscience?
> 
> [Edited on 10-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am asking you to simply use your common sense like you would in a myriad of other situations. Why does the choice have to be between partake no matter what and always abstain?
> 
> I could just as easily turn your comment on you: how do you *know* when someone "rejects the clear teaching of scripture," and you are "no longer bound" ? Do you need Christ's omniscience? Where in Scripture do you get the criteria? Is it when you explain the Biblical doctrine once? Twice? Seven times? Seventy times seven? Your position is even vaguer than you say mine is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The criteria is patiently and lovingly. I would abstain for the time it would take to get a hold of whether the person was truly convicted or (as Mark states) being legalistic solely. Paul says that this persons faith is _weak_; how is faith enhanced? By Gods word! It is the word that sets one free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legalism is a weakness. You are correct - the Word is what sets one free. That is what Paul is saying: keep bringing the Word, but if one's actions (i.e. partaking) get in the way of the Word (i.e. cause one to stumble) then he would *never* (that word again) partake.
> 
> You still have not told me what never means when it doesn't mean never.
Click to expand...


Fred,
Can our words or actions really get in the way? I believe Paul used the term never to show that as long as there was a misunderstanding, i.e. lack of knowledge, he would refrain. I agree with this. However, when one rejects the knowledge (which is truth), and I can discern this, I'm done. I believe I am free of guilt.


----------



## Saiph

> In this wisdom, Solomon knew that murder was not an option and by faith he trusted God would prevail in this scenario.



That concept in no way contradicts what I said. . that I can see.

Solomon cleverly cut through the conflicting claims in this way: He ordered that a sword be brought to the court and offered to give each woman half of the disputed child. As he had hoped, the real mother revealed herself when she relinquished her claim in order to spare the child's life.

But whatever, the only point I am making is that in grey issues we must pray for wisdom and act in faith.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Fred,
> Can our words or actions really get in the way? I believe Paul used the term never to show that as long as there was a misunderstanding, i.e. lack of knowledge, he would refrain. I agree with this. However, when one rejects the knowledge (which is truth), and I can discern this, I'm done. I believe I am free of guilt.



Scott,

With all respect, you are completely reading that into the text. There is nothing about knowledge, discernment or the like there. Nothing. Nothing even close.

As for whether our actions can get in the way, Paul is very clear about that as well:

1 Corinthians 8:9 beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

Romans 14:13 not to put a stumbling block (i.e. eating) or a cause to fall in our brother's way

Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak

I'm sorry, but Paul's admonition is clear. Only by bringing in extra-Biblical "logic" can you escape it. That is neither wise nor safe.


----------



## pastorway

*Luke 17* 

1 Then He said to the disciples, "œIt is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Little ones = weaker brothers


----------



## Saiph

Well Scott, I half way agree with you, and, as I know for myself, one can be right and orthodox, and still be an ass. I have forced liberty over a brothers weakness before. And I regret it. 

I think the discernment is derived from other passages though. So do we all agree there is a limit to our tolerance of a weakness, like a brother who does not smoke cigars for instance? To me, the practice of it is simply resolved by partaking of it privately, or with others of like mind.

Are you Fred and Philip, saying that if we even know of one brother that is offended by cigar smoking, that we should categorically abstain forever ? ? ?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Are you Fred and Philip, saying that if we even know of one brother that is offended by cigar smoking, that we should categorically abstain forever ? ? ?



In their presence, yes. That does not mean that I would not teach them from the Bible that their belief was wrong. I want the Word to offend and convict, not my actions.

[Edited on 10/5/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Are you Fred and Philip, saying that if we even know of one brother that is offended by cigar smoking, that we should categorically abstain forever ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In their presence, yes. That does not mean that I would not teach them from the Bible that their belief was wrong. I want the Word to offend and convict, not my actions.
> 
> [Edited on 10/5/2005 by fredtgreco]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> But the issue here is ignorance; the weaker brother is ignorant of the truth. How is ignorance defeated in this case? The opposite of ignorance is knowledge. Is not part and parcel of wisdom to discern when a person is just being defiant to the truth? Would it be wrong to partake in front of this person after one discerns that the conviction itself is error and sinful as well?
Click to expand...


Scott,

I really don't get it. Paul does not say anything about defiance, or whether you can convince someone or anything. His statement is simple: if a weaker brother is offended by the eating of meat, don't eat meat. There are no caveats, no fine print, nothing. You keep trying to make this more complex, and to introduce elements into the text that are not there. Why? So that the weaker brother would be convinced? No, because that convincing comes from the Word, not from seeing you light up in front of him. You are concerned that you might be denied a personal pleasure that is permissible. Frankly, you are putting your own pleasure in front of the gospel.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,



> Frankly, you are putting your own pleasure in front of the gospel.



I did say clearly that if someone told me that they were _offended_ that I would abstain for a season; did I not? I just disagree with your interpretation; it has nothing todo with my own pleasure. I forgive you for leveling that against my person. God knows my heart, not you. That is simply not the case. If I thought that I destroyed a saint by partaking of anything, I would deny myself. 

Again I say, the issue at the root here is ignorance. When the ignorance is removed as well will be my abstaining.



[Edited on 10-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> I did say clearly that if someone told me that they were _offended_ that I would abstain for a season; did I not? I just disagree with your interpretation; it has nothing todo with my own pleasure. I forgive you for leveling that against my person. That is simply not the case. If I thought that I destroyed a saint by partaking of anything, I would deny myself.
> 
> Again I say, the issue at the root here is ignorance. When the ignorance is removed as well will be my abstaining.
> 
> [Edited on 10-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Scott,

The point in question is your phrase "for a season." It is directly contrary to Paul's phrase "never." If you simply point out to me where in the Bible "never" means "for a season" or "for a little while" I will acquiesce. Otherwise you are re-interpreting the Scripture to suit your own needs.

You know that this has nothing to do with my view of your concern for the lost or the gospel - I am concerned that your flawed interpretation could do harm, contrary to your best intentions.

Paul says absolutely nothing about ignorance. He does not say, "so long as they don't know that you can eat meat, don't eat, but as soon as you inform them (taking away their ignorance), go right ahead." He says "1 Corinthians 8:13 if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." The Greek is literally  ÎµÎ¹Ì“Ï‚ Ï„Î¿Ì€Î½ Î±Î¹Ì“Ï‰Í‚Î½Î±  "to the end of the age" (i.e. until glory).

Your difference is with Paul, not me.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ok. Whom am I responsible to? My brothers that are in my local church? People whom I don't know that could be influenced? Where is the line drawn?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ok. Whom am I responsible to? My brothers that are in my local church? People whom I don't know that could be influenced? Where is the line drawn?



Those who you know to be brothers in Christ. I would say that if you are out in public, for example, and know no one who is a Christian that might be offended, go ahead. If someone comes up to you and makes a profession and tells you he is offended, it is an opportunity to abstain and then talk to them about the gospel and the Bible.

It is also ok, in my opinion to ask. So if you are with a group of believers - I believe it is appropriate to say, would anyone object if I had a beer? But these are all matters of prudence.


----------



## Scott Bushey

So, I'm not responsible to people I don't know? What about a person whom knows me from church that has seen me serving. In other words, he knows of me and that I was involved in ministry, but I don't personally know him and wouldn't recognize him. He see's me partaking in a restaurant and stumbles. I don't have to worry about him?


----------



## pastorway

to Fred

[Edited on 10-5-05 by pastorway]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So, I'm not responsible to people I don't know? What about a person whom knows me from church that has seen me serving. In other words, he knows of me and that I was involved in ministry, but I don't personally know him and wouldn't recognize him. He see's me partaking in a restaurant and stumbles. I don't have to worry about him?



That is not your concern. Paul says that he would never eat meat again. You are not omniscient - to grant part of your earlier argument. The point is not to _cause _someone to stumble.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Acknowledging that Paul uses the term 'never', and as well acknowledging that he was well schooled in his theology, would it have been Pauls goal to leave this person in their ignorance? It is a serious charge if someone tells you that you are sinning by utilizing your God given freedom. What would be the appropriate response subsequently to the abstaining? Would you bring it to the pastor or elders for them to deal with it adequately?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Acknowledging that Paul uses the term 'never', and as well acknowledging that he was well schooled in his theology, would it have been Pauls goal to leave this person in their ignorance? It is a serious charge if someone tells you that you are sinning by utilizing your God given freedom. What would be the appropriate response subsequently to the abstaining? Would you bring it to the pastor or elders for them to deal with it adequately?



You would have to deal with it pastorally. But Paul's writings and life also make it very clear that he views his own liberty as a insignificant thing in his ministry. Therefore he treats it as such.


----------



## Herald

On the surface this should seem to be a slam dunk question. But it honestly got me to think about liberty. If drugs were legal in the United States (as they are in some European nations), would we have the liberty to use them? Both alcohol and drugs effect the central nervous system. They alter the sober workings of the mind. Alcohol does so when used to excess and drugs are intended to do so by intent. Biblically, do we have liberty to partake of both? When does our liberty become stupidity?

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> On the surface this should seem to be a slam dunk question. But it honestly got me to think about liberty. If drugs were legal in the United States (as they are in some European nations), would we have the liberty to use them? Both alcohol and drugs effect the central nervous system. They alter the sober workings of the mind. Alcohol does so when used to excess and drugs are intended to do so by intent. Biblically, do we have liberty to partake of both? When does our liberty become stupidity?
> 
> [Edited on 10-5-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]



When you use it to sin.........


----------



## Larry Hughes

> On the surface this should seem to be a slam dunk question. But it honestly got me to think about liberty. If drugs were legal in the United States (as they are in some European nations), would we have the liberty to use them? Both alcohol and drugs effect the central nervous system. They alter the sober workings of the mind. Alcohol does so when used to excess and drugs are intended to do so by intent. Biblically, do we have liberty to partake of both? When does our liberty become stupidity?



The gift of science comes to the rescue. There is a lot here to consider. First, drugs are not entirely illegal in the US. They are quite legal, it just matters which drugs we mean and "œwho is the drug dealer"œ. Drug companies are one of the largest industries in the US. We´ve just legalized it a bit different than Europe, under a mask of hypocrisy. Second, drugs are not the only things that we intake that affect the central nervous system. You must consider how the human body is affected by ANY thing and not just "œdrugs" per se. Too much food can and does have deleterious effects and heart disease is still the number one killer in this country, so it affects families, life and society. If you don"˜t think so take a look at your insurance cost next time. When will the pietist boycott McDonald´s as a "œwitness"? Too much television though not considered a "œdrug" per se constitutes an addiction, it affects the CNS by stimulus (just like a drug) and TV in excess has all but destroyed the American family. Cell phone usage while driving is more deadly than alcohol recent studies have proven this. Do you use a cell phone while driving? Then you are recklessly endangering other people including yourself and all the relationships involved. Does cell phone use affect the CNS? You bet it does we just don´t think about it in the same terms as we do alcohol´s or traditional drug´s affects, yet both affect the CNS, impair and so forth. Are people addicted to TV, Cell Phones, sex, food, etc"¦ You bet they are and millions die each year or are greatly affected in their familial relationships due to these.

The body merely becomes accustom to whatever the lust is that one over uses it. People have very real withdraw effects from things NEVER ingested into the body some are by definition sin and some are not only their abuse; gambling, sex, television, Pentecostal charismatic events, and so forth. If you don´t think so watch someone under these and many many other things and see their withdraw.

As to intent of drugs, no they are not. Their design in creation is not for the intent to be mind altering, only their abuse. Mind alteration itself is narrowly considered when we think only in terms of chemical alteration like the use of LSD or some similar drug. But anything can be used to purposefully alter the mind, that´s why sinful men use escapism via many means other than drugs (some sin by definition some not), such as literature, again TV, sex, food (ever hear of comfort foods), running, and so forth. Again, not all these are sin but used as an idol are.

Specifically concerning alcohol: If anyone ever bothers to read the history on prohibition one would realize what a satanic effort it really was and has now placed the church as a whole under a legal captivity. Such groups as the KKK, the Masons and others where one of a long list of "œfine outstanding" proponents of this doctrine of demons under the guise of moral "œchristian" reforms. And this putrid movement was responsible for the removal of wine from the sacred Lord´s Supper, make no mistake about it, don´t fool yourself to support the world´s wisdom - it was NOT biblical exegesis. I find it utterly hypocritical and anti-Gospel that the SBC binds the conscience on God´s gift of wine and beer and so forth, yet they found in 1996 by their OWN research that it is "œup to the believer´s conscience" as to whether or not they could be members, have deacons and pastors as members of a manifestly anti-Christ religion known as the Free Masons. They speak boldly on something indifferent as if it bears witness to the Gospel (it does not), but cower in the corner on a gross manifest idolatry in their midst. Why? $$$.

ldh


----------



## Herald

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> 
> 
> On the surface this should seem to be a slam dunk question. But it honestly got me to think about liberty. If drugs were legal in the United States (as they are in some European nations), would we have the liberty to use them? Both alcohol and drugs effect the central nervous system. They alter the sober workings of the mind. Alcohol does so when used to excess and drugs are intended to do so by intent. Biblically, do we have liberty to partake of both? When does our liberty become stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gift of science comes to the rescue. There is a lot here to consider. First, drugs are not entirely illegal in the US. They are quite legal, it just matters which drugs we mean and "œwho is the drug dealer"œ. Drug companies are one of the largest industries in the US. We´ve just legalized it a bit different than Europe, under a mask of hypocrisy. Second, drugs are not the only things that we intake that affect the central nervous system. You must consider how the human body is affected by ANY thing and not just "œdrugs" per se. Too much food can and does have deleterious effects and heart disease is still the number one killer in this country, so it affects families, life and society. If you don"˜t think so take a look at your insurance cost next time. When will the pietist boycott McDonald´s as a "œwitness"? Too much television though not considered a "œdrug" per se constitutes an addiction, it affects the CNS by stimulus (just like a drug) and TV in excess has all but destroyed the American family. Cell phone usage while driving is more deadly than alcohol recent studies have proven this. Do you use a cell phone while driving? Then you are recklessly endangering other people including yourself and all the relationships involved. Does cell phone use affect the CNS? You bet it does we just don´t think about it in the same terms as we do alcohol´s or traditional drug´s affects, yet both affect the CNS, impair and so forth. Are people addicted to TV, Cell Phones, sex, food, etc"¦ You bet they are and millions die each year or are greatly affected in their familial relationships due to these.
> 
> The body merely becomes accustom to whatever the lust is that one over uses it. People have very real withdraw effects from things NEVER ingested into the body some are by definition sin and some are not only their abuse; gambling, sex, television, Pentecostal charismatic events, and so forth. If you don´t think so watch someone under these and many many other things and see their withdraw.
> 
> As to intent of drugs, no they are not. Their design in creation is not for the intent to be mind altering, only their abuse. Mind alteration itself is narrowly considered when we think only in terms of chemical alteration like the use of LSD or some similar drug. But anything can be used to purposefully alter the mind, that´s why sinful men use escapism via many means other than drugs (some sin by definition some not), such as literature, again TV, sex, food (ever hear of comfort foods), running, and so forth. Again, not all these are sin but used as an idol are.
> 
> Specifically concerning alcohol: If anyone ever bothers to read the history on prohibition one would realize what a satanic effort it really was and has now placed the church as a whole under a legal captivity. Such groups as the KKK, the Masons and others where one of a long list of "œfine outstanding" proponents of this doctrine of demons under the guise of moral "œchristian" reforms. And this putrid movement was responsible for the removal of wine from the sacred Lord´s Supper, make no mistake about it, don´t fool yourself to support the world´s wisdom - it was NOT biblical exegesis. I find it utterly hypocritical and anti-Gospel that the SBC binds the conscience on God´s gift of wine and beer and so forth, yet they found in 1996 by their OWN research that it is "œup to the believer´s conscience" as to whether or not they could be members, have deacons and pastors as members of a manifestly anti-Christ religion known as the Free Masons. They speak boldly on something indifferent as if it bears witness to the Gospel (it does not), but cower in the corner on a gross manifest idolatry in their midst. Why? $$$.
> 
> ldh
Click to expand...


You know Larry, I appreciate the education. Maybe I should have been more specific. When I mean drugs, I mean herion, LSD, smack, etc. The drugs that people take to get high...not for medicinal use.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> ...but regarding the above, wouldn't his parents have the same judgment theoritically? Their beliefs are the same regardless if one drinks in front of them are not. Regardless if they judge Gabe or not, they judge the idea the same, it's just the application that differs...no?
> 
> I guess I still don't see this as "causing them to stumble."
> 
> Care to clarify?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> You've got to help me here. I honestly have no idea what you are saying.
Click to expand...


Fred,

This is where I am falling down (but making progress as I meditate on the scripture and read commentaries).

Charles Hodge sums up the two views in his comments on Romans 14:20:



> All things (i.e., all kinds of food) are pure; but it is evil (kako>n, not merely hurtful, but sin, evil in a moral sense) for that man that eateth with offense. This last clause admits of two interpretations.* It may mean, It is sinful toeat in such a way as to cause others to offend. The sin intended is that of one strong in faith who so uses his liberty as to injure his weaker brethren. This is the view commonly taken of the passage, and it agrees with the general drift of the context, and especially with the following verse, where causing a brother to stumble is the sin against which we are cautioned.* A comparison, however, of this verse with ver. 14, where much the same sentiment is expressed, leads many interpreters to a different view of the passage. In ver. 14 it is said, "˜Nothing is common of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean;´ and here, "˜All things are pure, but it is evil to him who eateth with offense.´ To eat with offense, and, to eat what we esteem impure, are synonymous expressions. If this is so, then the sin referred to is that which the weak commit, who act against their own conscience. But throughout the whole context, to offend, to cause to stumble, offense, are used, not of a man´s causing himself to offend his own conscience, but of one man´s so acting as to cause others to stumble. And as this idea is insisted upon in the following verse, the common interpretation is to be preferred.



I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you hold to the view that is bolded, while I am arguing for the underlined view.

Still not sure.


----------



## Steve Owen

The following verse would seem to relevant to tobacco, to (legal) drug-taking and to anything but the most moderate alcohol consumption:-

1Cor 6:12. *'All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.' *

Drugs, tobacco and to a lesser extent, alcohol, are addictive- they bring us under their power.

Martin

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------

