# Flaunting Christian Liberty



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> Would someone just please tell me if I need to cancel our fellowship time at the local brew pub and move it to someplace "safe" ... like Old Country Buffet.



I don't mean to call just one person out on the carpet because I read comments like this all the time when it comes to alcohol. I am curious at how a remark like this is justified in the light of Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10?

I am not offended by alcohol, but there are obviously some on this board that are. So, how is throwing this liberty in their face any different then them saying it is "unwise" to drink? According to Paul in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10 it isn't a bit different.

Now, someone might say if the person offended by alcohol can't take the heat they need not read the remarks. Doesn't the same have to apply to the "unwise" comments? BOTH remarks could be classified wrong in light of Romans 14. And if it's getting thrown around that there is a misunderstanding of the gospel from one party then I would argue the same about comments like the one above.

If comments like this are made in the Puritan Pub, a private forum, then that's a different story. Those offended by alcohol have no business going into the Puritan Pub. But these types of comments are made on this board all the time. They flaunt Christian liberty and they fly all over what Paul was teaching in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10.

What's good for the goose is also good for the gander, is it not?


----------



## BobVigneault

If someone believes that drinking alcohol is a sin and thereby calling our Lord a sinner then that persons BLASHEMY trumps my 'hurting someone's feelings'. I am going to come after that person and hurt their feelings 'til they cry. 

On the other hand, if you don't want to drink because you hold a conviction that you might be a potential drunk then I will defend you against anyone who tries to sway your conviction.


----------



## Barnpreacher

BobVigneault said:


> If someone believes that drinking alcohol is a sin and thereby calling our Lord a sinner then that persons BLASHEMY trumps my 'hurting someone's feelings'. I am going to come after that person and hurt their feelings 'til they cry.
> 
> On the other hand, if you don't want to drink because you hold a conviction that you might be a potential drunk then I will defend you against anyone who tries to sway your conviction.




I never said one thing about sin in the above post, Bob. I said if someone is offended by alcohol, in light of Romans 14, the comments flaunting Christian liberty are just as wrong as calling the consuming of alcohol "unwise" and comparing it to "Russian Roulette".


----------



## BobVigneault

Ryan, I wasn't coming after you in my post. Everyone's getting a bit gun shy here. I'm just giving you a summary of how I deal with folks regarding booze and Christian liberty. I will fight for the weaker brother and attack the pharisee. Ryan, I am not putting you in either group.


----------



## Barnpreacher

BobVigneault said:


> Ryan, I wasn't coming after you in my post. Everyone's getting a bit gun shy here. I'm just giving you a summary of how I deal with folks regarding booze and Christian liberty. I will fight for the weaker brother and attack the pharisee. Ryan, I am not putting you in either group.



No, no Bob. I know that brother. I wasn't upset in my last post (sorry if it seemed that way). 

I just want to make sure we keep a distinction between the fact that I am not talking about whether or not someone thinks alcohol is a sin. I am talking about someone that is offended by alcohol (for various reasons). That person is classified as a weaker brother who doesn't understand Christian liberty. However, comments that flaunt Christian liberty also go against what Paul teaches in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10. I am looking for the justification in this and I cannot find it.


----------



## Davidius

No one was flaunting anything to bwsmith. We were on on the defensive.


----------



## BobVigneault

I'm going to quote myself, quoting myself regarding Romans 14:



> I believe it's very important and time well spent that we disagree over minor issues. I used to think order of worship was a minor thing. Our differences must be brought to light and tested. *Romans 14 does not say, "Lighten up everyone and just argue about important things." Romans 14 says, "Form an opinion, a strong one.*
> 
> Quoting myself from another thread_
> 
> "....if you are fully convinced in your own mind that you shouldn't (insert conviction here) out of honor and devotion to God then for YOU to (insert conviction here) would be a sin. I may even be sinning if I try to encourage you to (insert conviction here). People can and often do hold to exact opposite convictions yet still honor Christ in those convictions. This is our privilege and commandment.
> 
> Our first question must always be 'Am I fully convinced in my own mind that I am honoring Christ in this thing?" This is where debate on the board is crucial. We test and prove and separate biblical conviction from opinion and whimsy.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> No one was flaunting anything to bwsmith. We were on on the defensive.



Maybe that's part of the problem. Why would you be on the defensive?


----------



## BobVigneault

The question really comes down to whether you are offending a weaker brother or a pharisee. If it's a weaker brother, a newbie in the faith, then practice the great Christian charity and patience. If it's a pharisee, OFFEND AWAY! This was the test and tact of Calvin, Turretin and the Geneva crowd.


----------



## Civbert

BobVigneault said:


> The question really comes down to whether you are offending a weaker brother or a pharisee. If it's a weaker brother, a newbie in the faith, then practice the great Christian charity and patience. If it's a pharisee, OFFEND AWAY! This was the test and tact of Calvin, Turretin and the Geneva crowd.



"Weaker brother" also does not imply weaker in faith. It mainly refers to the one that takes offense to something. A pastor might find smoking offensive, and still be a strong biblical Christian. 

He would only be a pharisee if he says the Bible forbids smoking. 

It's not always easy to determine if someone is the "weaker brother" or the Pharisee. But I think we tend to believe someone who takes a view that is different is either flaunting liberty or being a Pharisee. 

I take my kids tricker-treating. Many of my friends do not. I should not assume they are "fencing the law" simply because they think it is wrong of me to go tricker-treating. And I hope they do not think I am flaunting my Christian liberty. But I think that is the tendency among us. We get defensive becaue we don't like disapproval. Unfortunately, there is going to be an element of disapproval when two people reach contrary convictions in areas of Christian liberty.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Barnpreacher said:


> I never said one thing about sin in the above post, Bob. I said *if someone is offended by alcohol*, in light of Romans 14, the comments flaunting Christian liberty are just as wrong as calling the consuming of alcohol "unwise" and comparing it to "Russian Roulette".



First of all, where are these people?

If a person is offended by alcohol they should stay away from bars and the Puritan Board, in my opinion.

I do not invite folks who are offended by alcohol to gathering at the local brew pub. 

Such is the nature of voluntary associations.

When I invite someone to my home who may be offended by alcohol I do not break out the booze.

Likewise, when I'm in the congregation where folks come together for worship and "involuntary" fellowship, I do not use my liberty to offend.

The PB is not the congregation, as we have been reminded many times for various reasons. People ought not be surprised that there are non-teetotalers on the PB. 

And perhaps they ought to consider whether I'm offended that they would come here only to be offended.


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> Maybe that's part of the problem. Why would you be on the defensive?



Because my choice to drink alcohol was compared to putting one bullet in a revolver, spinning the chamber, sticking said gun to my head, and pulling the trigger. Because it was asserted that _any_ consumption of alcohol is "unwise." This is an attempt to have one's cake it eat it, too. "Oh, well I didn't use the word 'sin'! I was just saying it 'might not be the best idea!!'" Give me a break.


----------



## Barnpreacher

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> No one was flaunting anything to bwsmith. We were on on the defensive.



David, call it what you want but the above comment and others like it is a flaunting of Christian liberty when you know some are offended by alcohol. And to be fair I can see where some of you were offended by her "unwise" and "Russian Roulette" comment. That doesn't justify it though.


----------



## Davidius

tcalbrecht said:


> First of all, where are these people?
> 
> If a person is offended by alcohol they should stay away from bars and the Puritan Board, in my opinion.
> 
> I do not invite folks who are offended by alcohol to gathering at the local brew pub.
> 
> Such is the nature of voluntary associations.
> 
> When I invite someone to my home who may be offended by alcohol I do not break out the booze.
> 
> Likewise, when I'm in the congregation where folks come together for worship and "involuntary" fellowship, I do not use my liberty to offend.
> 
> The PB is not the congregation, as we have been reminded many times for various reasons. People ought not be surprised that there are non-teetotalers on the PB.
> 
> And perhaps they ought to consider whether I'm offended that they would come here only to be offended.



I don't think it could be said any better.  There is not any flaunting going on.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I don't think it could be said any better.  There is not any flaunting going on.



Then I guess not one is being offended either. ... Other than those being accused of "fencing the law" that is.

... and those who believe their Christian liberties are under assault by those who would question the wisdom of taking advantage of those liberties in all cases.


----------



## Davidius

Barnpreacher said:


> David, call it what you want but the above comment and others like it is a flaunting of Christian liberty when you know some are offended by alcohol. And to be fair I can see where some of you were offended by her "unwise" and "Russian Roulette" comment. That doesn't justify it though.



I'm just not sure I understand what you would expect from non-teetotalers in a thread such as that other one.  A question was raised about the nature of wine as it is referenced in scripture. Some answered by saying that the proposed interpretation was false and gave reasons why. One individual hopped on the thread voluntarily and began to compare alcohol to Russian Roulette and the others defended their right to not be the objects of such silliness. Where did things go wrong?


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> Then I guess not one is being offended either. ... Other than those being accused of "fencing the law" that is.



I can't speak to that issue in particular since I was not one of the individuals who said it. As far as I know, Rich has already discussed this with you and others on the other thread and defended his words. 

However, even though I didn't use the specific term, I do think that the language used implied a serious lack of judgment on the part of anyone who would partake. How can one make comments such as to call any participation in something "unwise" and compare it to Russian Roulette without having the motive of sowing seeds of doubt in others' minds? It's an attempt to get me to the point where I can't drink a glass of beer in faith. And if I can't do it in faith, it's sin, is it not?


----------



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> The PB is not the congregation, as we have been reminded many times for various reasons. People ought not be surprised that there are non-teetotalers on the PB.



That to me is a total contradiction. Perhaps others should not be surprised that there are tee-totalers on the PB. But yet bwsmith had her "feet held to the fire" over her conviction, even though as far as I remember she never used the word sin when it came to drinking.


----------



## Davidius

Barnpreacher said:


> That to me is a total contradiction. Perhaps others should not be surprised that there are tee-totalers on the PB. But yet bwsmith had her "feet held to the fire" over her conviction, even though as far as I remember she never used the word sin when it came to drinking.



Yes, as I mentioned above, she just tiptoed around it in every way possible by using other terminology. I mean, really. You can say "all drinkers are sinners" or "all drinkers are unwise." What's the difference qualitatively? with regard to making generalized statements about the behavior of all individuals?


----------



## Barnpreacher

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Yes, as I mentioned above, she just tiptoed around it in every way possible by using other terminology.



I don't disagree with what you're saying, David. I am trying to get some to see that there is no difference in what she said and in those who throw out wise cracks about alcohol when they know some are offended by it. 

Paul didn't just write Romans 14 to prove the point about Christian liberty. There's a very good reason why weaker brethren were included in the passage.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I... How can one make comments such as to call any participation in something "unwise" and compare it to Russian Roulette without having the motive of sowing seeds of doubt in others' minds?


 Yes, the point is to get you to question the wisdom of drinking this day and age.



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> It's an attempt to get me to the point where I can't drink a glass of beer in faith. And if I can't do it in faith, it's sin, is it not?


 See here is where the problem lies. No one said it was a sin. Being unwise is not the same as sinning. Being unwise may only mean doing something with undo risk to yourself of others. It is "unwise" to drive a motorcycle without a helmet. It is unwise to eat sushi. It is unwise to play with matches. ... Right or wrong, none of these necessarily imply that the action is a sin, or that the speaker considers it a sin. All the statement means is that what you are doing might be risker than you think, and you should give it more thought. 

Personally, I love sushi and still play with matches occasionally.


----------



## Davidius

Barnpreacher said:


> I don't disagree with what you're saying, David. I am trying to get some to see that there is no difference in what she said and in those who throw out wise cracks about alcohol when they know some are offended by it.
> 
> Paul didn't just write Romans 14 to prove the point about Christian liberty. There's a very good reason why weaker brethren were included in the passage.



Okay, I think I'm starting to understand better where you're coming from. Are you questioning the direction in which the thread went altogether (you could answer this by responding to my statements and questions in #16) or against "wise cracks" like the one you quoted in the OP specifically?


----------



## Barnpreacher

And something else I think many of you are missing throughout this whole thing. Perhaps many of you weren't raised in a fundamental church that harped and pounded on these issues all your lives. I'm not saying it is right of them to do that, but it's not just easy for people raised in that kind of a church to just set it all aside and forget what they've been taught all their lives.

I am encouraging more compassion toward those weaker brethren instead of busting out the "Pharisee" or "anathema" comments, and the wise cracks that YOU KNOW will offend. Try and see where the other person is coming from in this whole thing. That's what Paul encouraged in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10.


----------



## Davidius

It wasn't only bwsmith's position that brought on the accusations; it was her approach. She almost continuously appealed to buzz words, statistics, pop psychology, etc. instead of God's Word to make her points. That is an issue that goes beyond her position on the consumption of alcohol and I think it's partially why several reacted so strongly as they did.


----------



## Barnpreacher

By the same token I would encourage bwsmith to be more careful with her choice of words and approach that could incite to rise as well.


----------



## Civbert

Civbert said:


> "Weaker brother" also does not imply weaker in faith. It mainly refers to the one that takes offense to something. A pastor might find smoking offensive, and still be a strong biblical Christian.



I need to correct this some.

[bible]Rom 14:1-3[/bible]

Paul certainly refers to the one who is "weak in faith". But the reference is weakness in regard to certain practices with are not forbidden. But specifically, we are not to pass judgment on their "opinions".

That is exactly what has been done here. We are passing judgment on peoples opinions rather than allowing people to have their convictions in areas of liberty. 

The difficulty is allowing people to express their convictions, and defend them, without being offended by them if they disagree with ours. I think people are questioning the motives of others instead of taking an charitable view. 

No doubt about it, there are some low motives involved in all this (we are all sinners and prone to impure motives), but we should not assume someone who disagrees with us lacks a true gospel-motivation - especially in an area of liberty.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Civbert said:


> Paul certainly refers to the one who is "weak in faith". But the reference is weakness in regard to certain practices with are not forbidden. But specifically, we are not to pass judgment on their "opinions".
> 
> That is exactly what has been done here. We are passing judgment on peoples opinions rather than allowing people to have their convictions in areas of liberty.
> 
> The difficulty is allowing people to express their convictions, and defend them, without being offended by them if they disagree with ours. I think people are questioning the motives of others instead of taking an charitable view.
> 
> No doubt about it, there are some low motives involved in all this (we are all sinners and prone to impure motives), but we should not assume someone who disagrees with us lacks a true gospel-motivation - especially in an area of liberty.



Exactly!

And even if bwsmith's approach was somewhat "unwise" that is something between her and God. Two wrongs don't make a right. In other words you cannot say, "Well, if that's the approach she is going to take then I'll say ______________ (insert wise crack here)."

That flies in the face of Romans 14 just as much as what she is being accused of.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> ... and I think it's partially why several reacted so strongly as they did.



Yes, they "reacted". The did not read her with charity. We need to be carefully not to read "tone of voice" into other peoples writing. We are sometimes more offended by the perceived "tone" of a post, then the actual content. 

This time, I did not read a judgmental tone into bwsmiths post, but I did in the reactions of those who implied she was "fencing the law" and assaulting our "Christian liberty". 

At the same time, there must be an element of judgment whenever anyones convictions differ with someone else's. We have to work hard at not taking offense. I have to consciously tell myself that my friends do not think less of me for drinking wine, or taking my kids tricker-treating, or for homeschooling my kids, or putting up a Christmas tree. Yet, I know there is some judgment involved because we have come to contrary positions on these issues and have strong convictions. "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (Rom 14:5)". We can both argue strongly for our opinions. But it takes a willing of charity to do that and still accept our contrary friends.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Barnpreacher said:


> That to me is a total contradiction. Perhaps others should not be surprised that there are tee-totalers on the PB. But yet bwsmith had her "feet held to the fire" over her conviction, even though as far as I remember she never used the word sin when it came to drinking.



I fail to see any contradiction.

Is it your assertion that she was offended by the mere fact that many members of the PB enjoy beverage alcohol? 

I'm still trying to figure out who here is offended by the mere fact of alcohol consumption by some Christians. Are you offended?


----------



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> I fail to see any contradiction.
> 
> Is it your assertion that she was offended by the mere fact that many members of the PB enjoy beverage alcohol?
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out who here is offended by the mere fact of alcohol consumption by some Christians. Are you offended?



I've already told you I wasn't, but it's obvious bwsmith is. And I'm sure there are others that are. Perhaps you could put out a poll on the matter.

Are you offended that I am trying to hold your feet to the fire on matters of charity when it comes to Christian liberty just as you and others were trying to do with bwsmith and matters of legalism?

I didn't write Romans 14. I just ask God to help me believe it and live it just like all the other parts of His Word.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Barnpreacher said:


> Exactly!
> 
> And even if bwsmith's approach was somewhat "unwise" that is something between her and God. Two wrongs don't make a right. In other words you cannot say, "Well, if that's the approach she is going to take then I'll say ______________ (insert wise crack here)."
> 
> That flies in the face of Romans 14 just as much as what she is being accused of.



You seem to be changing your tune from the OP.



> I am not offended by alcohol, but there are obviously some on this board that are.



Being offended by the way one chooses to express themself is not exactly the subject of Romans 14. And it is not the same as being offended by the consumption of beverage alcohol.

Which am I being taken to task for?


----------



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> Being offended by the way one chooses to express themself is not exactly the subject of Romans 14.



It's not? Interesting. Let's look at what Paul says about that.

Romans 14:13-19, "_Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. *Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another*_."

You show me how making wisecracks about liberty to drink alcohol that you know will offend the one you are trying to prove wrong is any different than what bwsmith has done and perhaps I'll change my tune.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Barnpreacher said:


> *I've already told you I wasn't, but it's obvious bwsmith is.* And I'm sure there are others that are. Perhaps you could put out a poll on the matter.



I didn't get the sense from her posts that she was offended by the use of beverage alcohol. Can you point me to something specific?



Barnpreacher said:


> Are you offended that I am trying to hold your feet to the fire on matters of charity when it comes to Christian liberty just as you and others were trying to do with bwsmith and matters of legalism?
> 
> I didn't write Romans 14. I just ask God to help me believe it and live it just like all the other parts of His Word.



Not at all. We all need to be challenged from God's word.


----------



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> Being offended by the way one chooses to express themself is not exactly the subject of Romans 14. And it is not the same as being offended by the consumption of beverage alcohol.
> 
> Which am I being taken to task for?



Please drop the being taken to task for the consumption of beverage alcohol bit. No where in my posts have I taken anyone to task for that, as I've made it clear I don't consider it a sin. Let's not drag a red herring into this thing.


----------



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> I didn't get the sense from her posts that she was offended by the use of beverage alcohol. Can you point me to something specific?



Are you serious?  I wonder if Russian Roulette doesn't offend her either?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Barnpreacher said:


> Please drop the being taken to task for the consumption of beverage alcohol bit. No where in my posts have I taken anyone to task for that, as I've made it clear I don't consider it a sin. Let's not drag a red herring into this thing.



Well, see my comment about changing your tune from the OP. 

If *you *were offended by my admittedly over-the-top question, then please say so and I'll apologize.

But the OP seems to be about how you perceived that some undesignated others who perhaps are offended by beverage alcohol use might also be offended by comments.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Barnpreacher said:


> Are you serious?  I wonder if Russian Roulette doesn't offend her either?



How would one know?


----------



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> Well, see my comment about changing your tune from the OP.
> 
> If *you *were offended by my admittedly over-the-top question, then please say so and I'll apologize.
> 
> But the OP seems to be about how you perceived that some undesignated others who perhaps are offended by beverage alcohol use might also be offended by comments.



Let me clarify it one more time and I'm done. If you want to call out bwsmith for being legalistic on her conviction then you need to understand that trying to offend her with comments about our liberty is just as wrong in light of Romans 14.

*Psalm 119:165*, "_Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them_." 

Your comment didn't offend me. But I felt like people need to understand if you want to use Romans 14 as a crutch for Christian liberty (which is fine) then you better know the other side of it deals with weaker brethren.

That's all. It's nothing personal. Your comment was the quickest one I could find to make my point.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Barnpreacher said:


> Let me clarify it one more time and I'm done. If you want to call out bwsmith for being legalistic on her conviction then you need to understand that trying to offend her with comments about our liberty is just as wrong in light of Romans 14.
> 
> *Psalm 119:165*, "_Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them_."
> 
> Your comment didn't offend me. But I felt like people need to understand if you want to use Romans 14 as a crutch for Christian liberty (which is fine) then you better know the other side of it deals with weaker brethren.
> 
> That's all. It's nothing personal. Your comment was the quickest one I could find to make my point.



I understand. My comments was not intended to offend anyone, just to point out (in a somewhat humerous manner) the difficulty and hypocrisy often associated with the subject.

And let me make one more quick comment before I call it quits. (And this is not intended to be self-serving.)



> Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. (Rom. 14:19)



May I kindly suggest that what makes for peace is not to pick a fight over beverage alcohol in this type of setting, especially when all you have going for you is personal opinion and human wisdom (statistics).


----------



## Barnpreacher

tcalbrecht said:


> May I kindly suggest that what makes for peace is not to pick a fight over beverage alcohol in this type of setting, especially when all you have going for you is personal opinion and human wisdom (statistics).



 I agree, Tom. That's why I have implied that I think both sides have a little room for reflection as a result of this thread. But don't we all need to leave room for that reflection in our OWN lives everyday. I pray that I remember that every day. 

With that I am going to leave the discussion of alcohol to others.

God bless, brother!


----------



## bwsmith

Thank you for raising this issue – although I as somewhat stunned to see how many times my name was mention. I have read carefully all the comments, and thank every poster for their time and effort.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Barnpreacher said:


> That to me is a total contradiction. Perhaps others should not be surprised that there are tee-totalers on the PB. But yet bwsmith had her "feet held to the fire" over her conviction, even though as far as I remember she never used the word sin when it came to drinking.



No, as I pointed out to you, Romans 14 did not apply to bwsmith as the weaker brother.

Her feet were held to the fire because the manner in which she was arguing against the thing was un-Biblical and, also, not the manner in which the "weaker brother" is commanded to act in such situations. I guess you don't want to continue to debate this issue but merely start a whole new thread where this issue is brought up again.

Here is what I said with respect to Romans 14 when you referred to her as a weaker sister


SemperFideles said:


> Again, no she can not. I would ask you to read Calvin in his commentatry on Romans 14 for I believe he is spot on. bwsmith is the wife of an Elder. She is not (or should not be at least) a neophyte in the faith. That's the first point.
> 
> The second point is that Romans 14 is primarily addressing those who have scruples that were based upon the Mosaic ordinances that they haven't quite shaken off. In other words, the _reason_ the weaker brother in Romans 14 still has a problem eating pork is that he grew up in a time when it was strictly forbidden to eat pork. The person who has come to fully understand his freedom in Christ is to be in a place where they realize that no food or drink can defile. In this case, abstinence has never been a Biblical command that the Jews would then have to "shake off."
> 
> Third, even when we allow for broader application, at the very least the "weaker brother" is not permitted to judge what another brother eats or drinks and say that they dishonor the Lord somehow in their doing of it. Paul's point, to a large extent, is "mind your own business" and that if it's a sin for you then be content with your scruples but don't try to put another brother or sister under the yoke of your scruples. Thus, even if I concede bwsmith is the "weaker brother", the Biblical rebuke to "mind her own business" would be appropriate as essentially an attempt to restrict the liberty of others by announcing "...this is unwise behavior...."



I would point out, as well, that the injunction by Paul is that we should not use our liberty to tempt another brother to do something that they believe in their conscience they would not do. This was not the concern of bwsmith. She was not worried that she would sin, she was worried that others would sin. If bwsmith, again, had expressed a Gospel motivation, admitted she had a personal scruple, and did not personally partake and might be tempted to sin by others if they drank around her, then the case could be made that she is the weaker sister.

 I closed the other thread because I am quite weary of the justifying of the unwise use of Scripture with reference to the things we call wise normatively. If you want to continue to discuss on this thread, it will not resurrect that discussion any further. You've had your 2-3 posts about how unjustified the criticism is so let's let it rest.

If you want to discuss Christian Liberty in general then that is fine. Frankly, however, if what I have said about Gospel motivation in the other thread has not sunk in, I'm not sure how this discussion can possibly proceed along positive lines as Romans 6 would be just as normative to discuss Christian liberty as Romans 14.

I have commended that you read Calvin on Romans 14 so I'll quote him below. It should be noted that if we cease doing everything that we fear might "offend a weaker brother" there is no end to the things we could find a person to be offended by. 


> 1. Him indeed, etc. He passes on now to lay down a precept especially necessary for the instruction of the Church, — that they who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ their own strength to sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are some weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this happened especially at that time; for the Churches were formed of both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from childhood, were not easily drawn away from them; and there were others who, having never learnt such things, refused a yoke to which they had not been accustomed.
> 
> Now, as man’s disposition is to slide from a difference in opinion to quarrels and contentions, the Apostle shows how they who thus vary in their opinions may live together without any discord; and he prescribes this as the best mode, — that they who are strong should spend their labor in assisting the weak, and that they who have made the greatest advances should bear with the more ignorant. For God, by making us stronger than others, does not bestow strength that we may oppress the weak; nor is it the part of Christian wisdom to be above measure insolent, and to despise others. The import then of what he addresses to the more intelligent and the already confirmed, is this, — that the ampler the grace which they had received from the Lord, the more bound they were to help their neighbors.
> 
> Not for the debatings of questions. This is a defective sentence, as the word which is necessary to complete the sense is wanting. It appears, however, evident, that he meant nothing else than that the weak should not be wearied with fruitless disputes. But we must remember the subject he now handles: for as many of the Jews still clave to the shadows of the law, he indeed admits, that this was a fault in them; he yet requires that they should be for a time excused; for to press the matter urgently on them might have shaken their faith.
> 
> He then calls those contentious questions which disturb a mind not yet sufficiently established, or which involve it in doubts. It may at the same time be proper to extend this farther, even to any thorny and difficult questions, by which weak consciences, without any edification, may be disquieted and disturbed. We ought then to consider what questions any one is able to bear, and to accommodate our teaching to the capacity of individuals.
> 
> 
> 2. Let him who believes, etc. What Erasmus has followed among the various readings I know not; but he has mutilated this sentence, which, in Paul’s words, is complete; and instead of the relative article he has improperly introduced alius — one, “One indeed believes,” etc. That I take the infinitive for an imperative, ought not to appear unnatural nor strained, for it is a mode of speaking very usual with Paul.
> 
> He then calls those believers who were endued with a conscience fully satisfied; to these he allowed the use of all things without any difference. In the mean time the weak did eat herbs, and abstained from those things, the use of which he thought was not lawful. If the common version be more approved, the meaning then will be, — that it is not right that he who freely eats all things, as he believes them to be lawful, should require those, who are yet tender and weak in faith, to walk by the same rule. But to render the word sick, as some have done, is absurd.
> 
> 
> 3. Let not him who eats, etc. He wisely and suitably meets the faults of both parties. They who were strong had this fault, — that they despised those as superstitious who were scrupulous about insignificant things, and also derided them: these, on the other hand, were hardly able to refrain from rash judgments, so as not to condemn what they did not follow; for whatever they perceived to be contrary to their own sentiments, they thought was evil. Hence he exhorts the former to refrain from contempt, and the latter from excessive moroseness. And the reason which he adds, as it belongs to both parties, ought to be applied to the two clauses, — “When you see,” he says, “a man illuminated with the knowledge of God, you have evidence enough that he is received by the Lord; if you either despise or condemn him, you reject him whom God has embraced.”
> 
> 4. Who art thou who judgest, etc. “As you would act uncourteously, yea, and presumptuously among men, were you to bring another man’s servant, under your own rules, and try all his acts by the rule of your own will; so you assume too much, if you condemn anything in God’s servant, because it does not please you; for it belongs not to you to prescribe to him what to do and what not to do, nor is it necessary for him to live according to your law.”
> 
> Now, though the power of judging as to the person, and also as to the deed, is taken from us, there is yet much difference between the two; for we ought to leave the man, whatever he may be, to the judgment of God; but as to his deeds we may indeed form a decisive opinion, though not according to our own views, but according to the word of God; and the judgment, derived from his word, is neither human, nor another man’s judgment. Paul then intended here to restrain us from presumption in judging; into which they fall, who dare to pronounce anything respecting the actions of men without the warrant of God’s word.
> 
> To his own Lord he stands or falls, etc. As though he said, — “It belongs rightly to the Lord, either to disapprove, or to accept what his servant doeth: hence he robs the Lord, who attempts to take to himself this authority.” And he adds, he shall indeed stand: and by so saying, he not only bids us to abstain from condemning, but also exhorts us to mercy and kindness, so as ever to hope well of him, in whom we perceive anything of God; inasmuch as the Lord has given us a hope, that he will fully confirm, and lead to perfection, those in whom he has begun the work of grace.
> 
> But by referring to the power of God, he means not simply, as though he had said, that God can do this if he will; but, after the usual manner of Scripture, he connects God’s will with his power: and yet he speaks not here of perpetuity, as though they must stand to the end whom God has once raised up; but he only reminds us, that we are to entertain a good hope, and that our judgments should lean this way; as he also teaches us in another place,
> 
> “He who began in you a good work, will perform it to the end.” (Philippians 1:6.)
> 
> In short, Paul shows to what side their judgments incline, in whom love abounds.


----------



## Barnpreacher

SemperFideles said:


> No, as I pointed out to you, Romans 14 did not apply to bwsmith as the weaker brother.



From one man to another I say it applies. You're not the final word on the Scripture. Now we can both argue about it till we're blue in the face but lose the arrogant "I pointed it out to you, so that's the final word" attitude. I haven't taken that approach and neither should you. Quite frankly I'm not real interested in what you pointed out to me because I believe you were and are wrong on the issue.





SemperFideles said:


> I closed the other thread because I am quite weary of the justifying of the unwise use of Scripture with reference to the things we call wise normatively. If you want to continue to discuss on this thread, it will not resurrect that discussion any further. You've had your 2-3 posts about how unjustified the criticism is so let's let it rest.



I did let it rest. I was done. You had to have the last say after the thread had died down.




SemperFideles said:


> If you want to discuss Christian Liberty in general then that is fine. Frankly, however, if what I have said about Gospel motivation in the other thread has not sunk in, I'm not sure how this discussion can possibly proceed along positive lines as Romans 6 would be just as normative to discuss Christian liberty as Romans 14.



And you were instructed by more than a few people (including two ministers) that you were off base in your assessment. Are you willing to examine and listen as much as you want others to do so when you speak?


----------



## bwsmith

For the records, it was my humble recollection that use of alcohol thread unfolded with a question – based on an opinion 
_Are there any here who oppose the consumption of alcohol? If so how would you respond to these: Scripture does not necessarily forbid a Christian from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. In fact, some Scriptures discuss alcohol in positive terms. Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs “drink wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:11 encourages “yes, come buy wine and milk…”_​
I responded, “The way I oppose Russian roulette, I oppose the use of alcohol. But, guess what? Nobody cares.” I should have added that sniping verses from wisdom literature, or Psalms, and the prophets without reference to other things the Lord says about how we celebrate and what we celebrate isn’t . . . the best way to understanding. Perhaps that would would have taken the discussion in a different direction? 

The blessings of created things such as wine, food, music, children, are not unmixed --given the nature of those who receive them. God intended all His creation for good. Because of the Fall, there is only one unalloyed Gift - blessing -- and that is His grace that grants His own to see Christ Jesus Ruling and Resurrected. 

I used an analogy that offended many posters. An analogy or metaphor is often shocking – even offending. 

The analogy works for all kinds of things – The Bible makes clear that “things” aren’t sinful; the heart is sinful and deceitful above all else. And it is quite adept at misusing things that God intended for blessing. The church is full of overweight and anorexic people whose god is their body. It is full of all kinds of driven people whose god is not the Lord. Indeed as Francis Schaeffer remarked personal peace and affluence, is our – the church’s – most dangerous enemy. Isaiah warned women about the ease with which they were living, and the consequences. (Isaiah 32) 

I stated more than once that alcohol consumption is not forbidden – but its use carries serious warnings -- given the problems in the 21st century caused by addictions, esp. among solidly reformed types, I wonder that so many still want their freedoms unhampered.


----------



## Theoretical

Here's the problem with the analogy (and yes, I realize all analogies are flawed).

Russian roulette is an _inherently _unlawful act (against the positive requirement to value life implicit in the 6th Commandment) - it is not merely one of a bunch of things that accumulate to kill you, and may or may not be the proximate killer - if the gun goes off, you are dead or vegetative.

Comparing alcohol usage to russian roulette inherently makes any alcohol
consumption a similar violation of the 6th Commandment, and thus inherently immoral. Can its abuse kill you - of course it can - but not in the same instantaneously morally culpable foolishness of russian roulette. Alcohol use must be moderate and with care, but even with its many risks, it is not russian roulette.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Barnpreacher said:


> From one man to another I say it applies. You're not the final word on the Scripture. Now we can both argue about it till we're blue in the face but lose the arrogant "I pointed it out to you, so that's the final word" attitude. I haven't taken that approach and neither should you. Quite frankly I'm not real interested in what you pointed out to me because I believe you were and are wrong on the issue.


One man to another, I offered exegesis and commentary on the subject so lose the "...you're not the final authority...and arrogant..." charge. In the previous post, I answered your point in detail and you did not respond to a single point I made. My points echo those of Calvin and a number of other great commentators on the nature of the weaker brother. You brought it up again and I was pointing out that I had addressed this and didn't agree. Your "exegesis" has simply consisted of "...bwsmith is the weaker sister...." OK, man to man, _how_ is she the weaker sister in light of Romans 14? Who is arrogant: the man who tries to explain why Romans 14 does not apply and quotes respected exegetes or the man that simply says: "I say it applies"? I never said it was so because I said it was. I presented a case that appealed outside of myself. I assume you don't mean to imply that the proper interpretation rests with you and for me to say otherwise is to be arrogant.



> I did let it rest. I was done. You had to have the last say after the thread had died down.


...but you resurrected the point of the weaker brother here and I responded because I read down to that point. I felt I needed to bring closure on the point of the weaker brother as well because you have not offered any exegesis other than citing Romans 14 as a whole.



> And you were instructed by more than a few people (including two ministers) that you were off base in your assessment. Are you willing to examine and listen as much as you want others to do so when you speak?


I have been interacting. I have been echoing Calvin and the Reformed understanding of Liberty and the Gospel on this. I listened to and qualified my position to Rev. Winzer.

I don't count noses on Scriptural principles but I will say that I have had far more public and private agreements by Elders and Pastors than criticism on my points - including many private notes that I'm dead on. Take that for what its worth. I never ignore Rev. Winzer and I believe I qualified to him and even sent him a private note to ensure we're not agreeing violently. If, in the end, he and I disagree with the _intent_ of bwsmith's comments then I can live with that but I don't doubt our agreement if he thought my concern stuck. I tried repeatedly to get assurances that my concern was not accurate and laid out the evidence of posts looking for a Gospel-balancing clue but was never provided one. Read Romans 14, in fact. What motivation does Paul give for the stronger brother to restrict his liberty and what is the motivation for the weaker brother not to judge? _That_ is what I've been talking about all along.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bwsmith said:


> For the records, it was my humble recollection that use of alcohol thread unfolded with a question – based on an opinion
> _Are there any here who oppose the consumption of alcohol? If so how would you respond to these: Scripture does not necessarily forbid a Christian from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. In fact, some Scriptures discuss alcohol in positive terms. Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs “drink wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:11 encourages “yes, come buy wine and milk…”_​
> I responded, “The way I oppose Russian roulette, I oppose the use of alcohol. But, guess what? Nobody cares.” I should have added that sniping verses from wisdom literature, or Psalms, and the prophets without reference to other things the Lord says about how we celebrate and what we celebrate isn’t . . . the best way to understanding. Perhaps that would would have taken the discussion in a different direction?
> 
> The blessings of created things such as wine, food, music, children, are not unmixed --given the nature of those who receive them. God intended all His creation for good. Because of the Fall, there is only one unalloyed Gift - blessing -- and that is His grace that grants His own to see Christ Jesus Ruling and Resurrected.
> 
> I used an analogy that offended many posters. An analogy or metaphor is often shocking – even offending.
> 
> The analogy works for all kinds of things – The Bible makes clear that “things” aren’t sinful; the heart is sinful and deceitful above all else. And it is quite adept at misusing things that God intended for blessing. The church is full of overweight and anorexic people whose god is their body. It is full of all kinds of driven people whose god is not the Lord. Indeed as Francis Schaeffer remarked personal peace and affluence, is our – the church’s – most dangerous enemy. Isaiah warned women about the ease with which they were living, and the consequences. (Isaiah 32)
> 
> I stated more than once that alcohol consumption is not forbidden – but its use carries serious warnings -- given the problems in the 21st century caused by addictions, esp. among solidly reformed types, I wonder that so many still want their freedoms unhampered.


And yet, after all that, you seem to still be unable to speak about a motivation for such things on the basis of Romans 6 or Romans 14. Do you even understand what I'm saying when I talk about a Gospel motivation for obedience because the above argument is not, strictly speaking, a Christian one. I appreciate it for its kernel of truth but it's still not the full picture of why a Christian is motivated to do a thing - especially in Romans 14, since this thread is supposed to be about flaunting Christian Liberty and you did not interact with the texts on the subject.


----------



## bwsmith

Theoretical said:


> Here's the problem with the analogy (and yes, I realize all analogies are flawed).
> 
> Russian roulette is an _inherently _unlawful act (against the positive requirement to value life implicit in the 6th Commandment) - it is not merely one of a bunch of things that accumulate to kill you, and may or may not be the proximate killer - if the gun goes off, you are dead or vegetative.
> 
> Comparing alcohol usage to russian roulette inherently makes any alcohol
> consumption a similar violation of the 6th Commandment, and thus inherently immoral. Can its abuse kill you - of course it can - but not in the same instantaneously morally culpable foolishness of russian roulette. Alcohol use must be moderate and with care, but even with its many risks, it is not russian roulette.



Thank you for that comment – 
I guess it’s more like playing with what you think is an unloaded gun. Again we know what the command is – moderation, and surely few pick up a drink with the desire to something “deadly.” When was the last time that knowing what the commands are, prevented us from inflicting pain? Deadly things may happen – unexpectedly, and unintentionally – either literally or relationally, or spiritually. And the one who drinks may live to see the harm he or she has inflicted, simply by seeing the hurt in the eyes of a spouse or child – the disappointment of a co-worker. 

And yes, all are free to use alcohol, and hope their freedoms will not backfire.


----------



## tcalbrecht

bwsmith said:


> And yes, all are free to use alcohol, and hope their freedoms will not backfire.



So I take it then you are not *offended *by folks who enjoy and use beverage alcohol in moderation.


----------



## MrMerlin777

joshua said:


> *sigh*


----------



## Davidius

edited by author


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Once and for all, the discussion about guns and alchohol and the like will end here.

This thread is about Christian Liberty. Present your Scriptures or case for the motivations for the proper exercise of Christian Liberty. That previous thread was closed for a reason as much as even I keep wanting to take it back up, it needs to die.


----------



## calgal

Christian liberty is not the same as license: correct?  It does imply that the Christian is mature enough to know their limits IMNSHO.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Yes, you're correct, Gail that liberty is not for license sake. Paul anticipates that attitude in Romans 6. We are to understand that we are freed from the Law's condemnation and our union with Christ in His death and resurrection is supposed to impel us to righteousness. We are slaves to Christ and to righteousness.

Now, that said, are all those in Christ mature enough to exercise this liberty without guidance? No, I've never argued that. I even acknowledged the point that, as parents guide their children, so we are to help others as they mature in prudence.

But it's all in how you discipline. I remember this one lady who was yelling at her 3 year old son about walking away from her. She exclaimed: "Don't ever do that again. Somebody could take you away forever and then Mommy would be really sad." I was horrified. The kid was oblivious. As a motivation for him to not run away it was way over the head of a three year old.

When I discipline my own children, I don't tell them not to do a thing because it is bad and I don't want them to be bad. I repeatedly give them the motivation that "... this pleases God...."

We all understand how discipline works and how maturity works. If my 5 year old son came up to me and asked me, is it OK to cross the street, I would not have a problem giving him a "law" at his age. If, when he is 22 years old, he is still asking me if it's OK to cross the street then I have failed miserably as a father to train self-discipline into the man.

Wisdom begins at times looking like Law but the goal is a self-disciplined exercise in liberty. The impelling nature of that self-discipline in a mature Christian MUST be a heart that desires to please God. Outwardly, two men can appear to be the same in the way they _behave_ but inwardly if a man's motivation is not bent to Christ then it's all a white-washed sepulchre.

The other day we were studying Malachi and one of the woman asked: "What do you tell people that don't go to Church because they don't want to tithe?"

I told her that my first concern was that such people were, first and foremost, focusing on the tithe as a law. Such men reveal the Gospel has not penetrated their hearts at all that they view the tithe in the manner of pure obligation.

I told her to tell them: "I'm more worried about the fact that you're not hearing the Gospel. You need to be in Church to hear that because your response indicates that you don't believe the Gospel."

Thus, when we live in light of heart's transformed, we ought to be on a tireless quest to pursue the things that please God. It ought to flow naturally from us. Some, in that pursuit of truth, come to differing conclusions. Some are "weaker" in their conclusions and being scrupulous in a manner that exceeds what God is fully calling them to. Those that have been convinced otherwise ought to appreciate, in the weaker brother, that the convictions are held for Christ's sake and not judge them therein. Those that are weaker ought to, likewise, judge that the stronger brother has come to a differing conviction but, still, _for Christ's sake_.

BUT, and here is the but that needs to be pointed out, not all convictions are for Christ's sake and we need to evaluate the way in which the injunction is being argued. Maybe it is a weaker brother and, in spite of the Word's injunction, he is judging his brother when he ought not. He needs to be reminded that its inappropriate. 

Worse yet, though, are those cases where the motivation for a thing is never couched for Christ's sake. That should cause concern and a bit of digging to determine what is going on. It may be that such a person may not understand the Gospel well at all or may, in fact, not be a brother at all.

This is why how we exercise our liberty and talk about our liberty is a good guage on how we understand the Gospel.


----------



## bwsmith

SemperFideles said:


> And yet, after all that, you seem to still be unable to speak about a motivation for such things on the basis of Romans 6 or Romans 14. Do you even understand what I'm saying when I talk about a Gospel motivation for obedience because the above argument is not, strictly speaking, a Christian one. I appreciate it for its kernel of truth but it's still not the full picture of why a Christian is motivated to do a thing - especially in Romans 14, since this thread is supposed to be about flaunting Christian Liberty and you did not interact with the texts on the subject.



No, I am not sure I do understand you – Is what you mean, you want me to “interact”withe texts, Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 10 - before I post a comment? 

In the thread on alcohol, I read some posters whose purpose was unclear, but appeared to be one that was to jump all over my answer to a question, based on Scripture taken out of context. And these posters had many assumptions about my thoughts, apparently forgetting the Body of Christ is many and varied. (Rom 14:1-2) I remind them, and myself: “But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table.”

Were I weak in the faith –the confidence that as I work out my salvation, God is at work in me, accomplishing His purposes – I cannot imagine what a discouragement these posts might have been. But they were a great tutorial on how (not) to speak when I disagree with some one, Christian, or not. 

Some posters, however chose encouraging and helpful words. (Romans 14:19-21) Because of their solicitude, perhaps gleaners will appreciate how Christians discuss thorny questions? 

1 Corinthians 10 is an apt reminder of taking care how we stand – out appearances do not make an inward reality that is pleasing to God. 

I certainly hope I have not misunderstood that I have the freedom to state an opinion even based on an understanding of freedom in Christ that is at variance with yours?

With respect, I don’t think Christians have the full picture, this side of glory – nor always our motivations above inspection or suspicion (Romans 7)


----------



## bwsmith

tcalbrecht said:


> So I take it then you are not *offended *by folks who enjoy and use beverage alcohol in moderation.



Depends on who the folks are . . . generally, no.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bwsmith said:


> No, I am not sure I do understand you – Is what you mean, you want me to “interact”withe texts, Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 10 - before I post a comment?
> 
> In the thread on alcohol, I read some posters whose purpose was unclear, but appeared to be one that was to jump all over my answer to a question, based on Scripture taken out of context. And these posters had many assumptions about my thoughts, apparently forgetting the Body of Christ is many and varied. (Rom 14:1-2) I remind them, and myself: “But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table.”
> 
> Were I weak in the faith –the confidence that as I work out my salvation, God is at work in me, accomplishing His purposes – I cannot imagine what a discouragement these posts might have been. But they were a great tutorial on how (not) to speak when I disagree with some one, Christian, or not.
> 
> Some posters, however chose encouraging and helpful words. (Romans 14:19-21) Because of their solicitude, perhaps gleaners will appreciate how Christians discuss thorny questions?
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10 is an apt reminder of taking care how we stand – out appearances do not make an inward reality that is pleasing to God.
> 
> I certainly hope I have not misunderstood that I have the freedom to state an opinion even based on an understanding of freedom in Christ that is at variance with yours?


I think what you keep missing is that I would hope that you would want to encourage people, first and foremost, to be impelled by the fact that they are united to Christ by their belief in the Gospel. Paul knew how bad sins were but he, when he talked about them, he didn't motivate Christians to avoid them because the Law tells you not to do it or because it is unwise, but He motivated them on the basis of their union with Christ. I kept saying this over and over and over and over. I kept wondering: "Why doesn't bwsmith hear the regular call of the Apostle in what is to motivate us?"

I would have hoped, up to now, that you would have at least said: "Rich, I get what you're saying. You're worried that I don't understand what Paul says about our Union with Christ and our motivation for things. Don't worry, I understand that."

Instead, you kept referring back to other motivations: fear of entrapment, being fooolish, etc.

I keep wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt but the idea of union with Christ that informs Romans 14 seems foreign to you.

Read my previous post please as I typed while you were doing so and then let me know what you think.

I know this is hard. This is torturous for me because I really, really, really want to give you the benefit of the doubt but I can't hear the Gospel coming out of you. Maybe I'm thick though.


----------



## bwsmith

SemperFideles said:


> I think what you keep missing is that I would hope that you would want to encourage people, first and foremost, to be impelled by the fact that they are united to Christ by their belief in the Gospel. Paul knew how bad sins were but he, when he talked about them, he didn't motivate Christians to avoid them because the Law tells you not to do it or because it is unwise, but He motivated them on the basis of their union with Christ. I kept saying this over and over and over and over. I kept wondering: "Why doesn't bwsmith hear the regular call of the Apostle in what is to motivate us?"
> 
> I would have hoped, up to now, that you would have at least said: "Rich, I get what you're saying. You're worried that I don't understand what Paul says about our Union with Christ and our motivation for things. Don't worry, I understand that."
> 
> Instead, you kept referring back to other motivations: fear of entrapment, being fooolish, etc.
> 
> I keep wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt but the idea of union with Christ that informs Romans 14 seems foreign to you.
> 
> Read my previous post please as I typed while you were doing so and then let me know what you think.
> 
> I know this is hard. This is torturous for me because I really, really, really want to give you the benefit of the doubt but I can't hear the Gospel coming out of you. Maybe I'm thick though.



With respect, I am united to God by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ – and I understand also from Paul a thorn, real and ruinous, is part of the battle which Christ will overcome. Four times in Romans, Paul counseled his readers to be wise, lest they become fools; be wise – not in their own eyes, but in what is good. 

Yes, you surely have the right to drink anything you want – as I have the right to point out the danger of seeking comfort and joy in that which has been corrupted by the Fall.  (as per the outline I cited from John MacArthur)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm amazed at the paucity of your expression about union with Christ and that you feel impelled to jump immediately to imperatives away from the indicative. Breathtaking. My concern has been heightened even more.

Don't have time to check on those wisdom injunctions now but will interact later.


----------



## crhoades

I've been away for a couple of days on a business trip and haven't been able to read every jot and tittle so I hope this doesn't take anything in a bad direction or repeat what others have written.

Sticking with the themes of Christian Liberty and Wisdom this passage comes to mind:



> *Colossians 2:20-23 *
> 20 ¶ If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--
> 21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"
> 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings?
> 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.


 
My biggest issue with all of this is that the term "wisdom" is being misused. When it is said that it is _unwise_ to handle, taste, or touch X it is using worldly wisdom. 

Christ has become our wisdom:


> 1 Corinthians 1:23-2423 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, *Christ* the power of God and *the wisdom of God*.


Indeed, Paul exhorts the Corinthian Church that:


> *1 Corinthians 2:5 *that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.


What is that power of God?



> 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 14 ¶ The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, *but is himself to be judged by no one*. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" *But we have the mind of Christ*.


Why can I partake of the things that God has given us? Because I have been renewed. I have the Spirit of God and the mind of Christ.

I have been told that:


> 1 Corinthians 9:1 ¶* Am I not free?...*





> 1 Corinthians 9:3-4 3 ¶ This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10:29-31 9 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? 31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.


Wisdom is to:


> *Proverbs 3:5-6 *5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.


*
So if I trust in the LORD and acknowledge Him when I lift my glass and give thanks - he will make my paths straight...A couple of verses later right in the middle of the wisdom passage here is a blessing that will occur:




Proverbs 3:7-10 7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil. 8 It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones. 9 Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; 10 then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine. 


Click to expand...

*
Here we are told to turn away from evil. But before we become wise in our own eyes and call wine evil - it is the very blessing yea super-abounding blessing of bursting vats. We would be blessed with even more wine/prosperity.

To wrap it up. To call something unwise is another way of stating that it is the opposite of wise. What is another term for the opposite of wise? Foolish. Jesus who is wisdom incarnate was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber. I would tremble at calling Jesus unwise or foolish. And it also denies the gifts and power of the Spirit. 

Now to temper everything I just said we are just as cautioned by the apostle to not be drunk with wine but filled with the Spirit. But even that cuts because at that moment he could have just said abstain.

James exhorts us:


> James 3:17-1817 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.


 
But this peace is founded in agreement in God's Word - not just agreeing to disagree.



> *2 Corinthians 13:11 *11 ¶ Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.




May this post bring peace to everyone. If I've erred in exegesis, reasoning, or was untoward anyone in tone, please correct and forgive me.


----------



## non dignus

Good post, Chris!

A few years back I went on a trip to Trinidad with my then pastor when I was in Pentecostalism. It was hot and humid so I wore shorts. Then I noticed no one else was wearing shorts! No one said anything but I could just feel the eyes rolling, the little smirks etc. 

These were my early years in the faith. I thought, "Is the group supposed to genuflect to the weakest one in the group? Where would we be if we applied this rule universally? 

This was legalism. Wearing shorts has nothing to do with the transition from the old to the new covenant, and neither does alcohol consumption. Drinking when you know a brother can't hold his liquor is a whole nother thing. 

The weaker brother needs to grow strong and grow up.


----------



## bwsmith

I am sorry you feel an admonition for wise conduct with (dangerous) substances is akin to Paul’s warning in Col 2:21-22 against the yoke of ceremonial law. 

Searching on several buzz words, I found a series of three outlines on the (proper) use of wine, tragic abuse that bedevils the church today. The first is listed in this link: http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg1936.htm


----------



## crhoades

And for what it's worth regarding flaunting liberty...I'm going to Atlanta this weekend with my Dad to see the Cardinals play the Braves. He is very anti-alcohol - General Baptist tee-totaler. I will not have a beer at the game although I would like to have one. I was on a business trip to Atlanta earlier this year and had a beer at the game. It is about respect for me. I have no problem reasoning with my Dad and pointing out that he is adding to the gospel and have done so in the past humbly.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bwsmith said:


> I am sorry you feel an admonition for wise conduct with (dangerous) substances is akin to Paul’s warning in Col 2:21-22 against the yoke of ceremonial law.
> 
> Searching on several buzz words, I found a series of three outlines on the (proper) use of wine, tragic abuse that bedevils the church today. The first is listed in this link: http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg1936.htm



Unless you have some Scriptural interaction to offer with respect to the subject of Christian liberty, I have already noted that this thread will not take up the subject of alcohol consumption again. That thread was closed.


----------



## Barnpreacher

SemperFideles said:


> My points echo those of Calvin and a number of other great commentators on the nature of the weaker brother. You brought it up again and I was pointing out that I had addressed this and didn't agree. Your "exegesis" has simply consisted of "...bwsmith is the weaker sister...." OK, man to man, _how_ is she the weaker sister in light of Romans 14?




See Poole:



> Ro 14:1
> Chapter Summary
> Ro 16:1-6 Directions to treat a weak brother kindly, and not to despise or censure one another in matters of indifference. Ro 16:6-9 Christ's right to our best services, whether we live or die. Ro 16:10-12 We must all be answerable for our respective conduct at his judgment-seat. Ro 16:13-23 We must be careful not to use our Christian liberty to the hurt or offence of tender consciences.
> Ver. 1. In this chapter and part of the next, the apostle treats of some lesser matters of religion, about which there were great contentions in the church of Rome. Some of the Jews, though they embraced the gospel, did stiffly adhere still to the Mosaical ceremonies; and though a difference in meats and days should be conscientiously observed, yet they were ready to censure those that were contrary-minded, as profane persons, and contemners of the law of God. On the other side, the believing Gentiles, being better instructed about their Christiall liberty, when they saw the Jews insisting upon such things as these, that had never any real goodness in them, and were now abrogated by Christ, they were ready to despise them as ignorant and superstitious, and to deny communion with them. The apostle therefore doth seasonably endeavour to arbitrate this matter, and make peace amongst them.
> Him that is weak in the faith; that is, wavering and unsettled in some lesser points of faith, particularly in the doctrine of Christian liberty, and freedom from the ceremonial law: he means, the scrupulous and erroneous Judaizer, though yet, in proportion, it may be applied to other scrupulous and doubting Christians.
> Receive ye; or, receive him to you, take him into your bosoms, admit him to communion with you, bear with his weakness, better instruct him with the spirit of meekness: see Ro 15:1; Php 3:15-16. Bucer received all, though differing from him in some opinions, in whom he found, aliquid Christi, any thing of Christ.
> But not to doubtful disputations: q. d. Do not entertain him with disputes and vain janglings, which will not edify, but perplex and prejudice him. Do not make him question sick, as it is in 1Ti 6:4. This passage may be expounded by Tit 3:9. The marginal reading would make this to be the sense, that a scrupulous Christian should be received unto communion; yet not so as to encourage him to judge and condemn the thoughts of those that differ from him.
> 
> Ro 14:2
> Ver. 2. One believeth that he may eat all things; i.e. one that is informed aright of his Christian liberty, is fully persuaded, and that upon good grounds, that he may eat any thing that is wholesome, though forbidden by the ceremonial law; that there is now no difference of clean and unclean meats: see Mt 15:11; Ac 10:12-15.
> Another, who is weak, eateth herbs; i.e. he that (as before) is weak in faith, and not so well informed, such a one, for fear of offending God by eating any thing that is forbidden, will rather content himself with the meanest diet. The meaning is not, as if any, in those times, thought it lawful only to eat herbs, and so abstained altogether from other meats; but they would rather satisfy themselves with herbs, and other fruits of the earth, in which the law of Moses made no difference, than eat meats that were forbidden, or not cleansed from blood, or offered to idols, &c.: see Da 1:8.
> 
> Ro 14:3
> Ver. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; i. e. Let not him that makes use of his liberty in eating any thing indifferently, vilify or contemn him that is of a contrary mind, as one that is ignorant and over scrupulous; and let not him that forbears such meats as were of old forbidden, judge and condemn him that is contrary-minded, as profane and over-venturous; notwithstanding such little difference in opinion, let one Christian love and communicate with another.
> For God hath received him: it is disputed, whether this be meant of the weak or strong Christian; the word judge, which immediately goes before and follows after, carries it rather for the latter. But some think it is meant of both. He that eateth, and he that eateth not, is received by God into his church and family, and indiffercnlly accepted with him, uponanother and a higher account.
> 
> Ro 14:4
> Ver. 4. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth: a sharp reprehension of the forementioned evil. You have the like: Jas 4:12. q. d. This phrase is repugnant not only to the law of God, but to the very law of nature, which tells us, that one man must not condemn the servant of another, over whom he hath no right or power; much less may any man condemn him that is the Lord's servant. Every Christian hath Christ alone for his own or his proper Master; and it is his judgment by which he must abide; it is to him that he standeth or falleth, that he doth well or ill.
> Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand: q. d. If (as thou thinkest) he be fallen or falling, he shall be upheld and supported; for God is able, &c. But how doth this follow, because God can make him stand, therefore he shall be holden up?
> Answer. It is a rule in divinity, that in all God's promises, his power is joined with his will; so that where the latter is once revealed, there is no question of the former: now of the word of God in this matter, there was no doubt; for he had said, Ro 14:3, that God had received him. You had the like way of arguing, Ro 11:23, where the apostle proves the calling of the Jews by an argument taken from the power of God, because he is able to graft them in again: see Ro 4:21; Heb 10:23.
> 
> Ro 14:5
> Ver. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike: there were differences in the church of Rome about the observation of days, as well as the choice of meats; and in this he endeavours an accommodation as well as in the other. The converted Jew was of opinion, that the festival days appointed in Moses' law, were holier than other days, and that they should still be observed: see Ga 4:10; Col 2:16. On the other side, the believing Gentile was of opinion, that the difference in days under the Old Testament was now ceased, and he (the text says) esteemed or approved of all days. The word alike is not in the original, but it is aptly supplied by our translators.
> Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; i.e. Let every man be satisfied as to the grounds of his practice; let him act by his own and not another man's, judgment and conscience; let him be so fully assured in his own mind of the lawfulness of what he doth, as to find no doubting or scrupulous hesitations in the doing of it; let him be able to say as the apostle himself doth, Ro 14:14. The reason of this counsel you have, ">Ro 14:23. He that doth what he thinks is a sin, is an offender against God, whether it be a sin or no. And yet a man may sin in that wherein he is fully persuaded he sinneth not. A full persuasion must be had, but it is not sufficient to make an action good or lawful.
> 
> Ro 14:6
> Ver. 6. In this verse you have a reason why Christians should not censure one another, upon an account of different opinions and practices, because they have all the same end and scope, which is the pleasing and glorifying of God. It is with regard to him that they eat, or eat not; that they observe those festival days, or observe them not; and so far they are on both sides to be commended; for that indeed should be our end, in all our actions, to glorify and please the Lord: see 1Co 10:31; Col 3:17.
> He giveth God thanks; i.e. he is thankful unto God for the bountiful and free use of his creatures. Some would ground that laudable practice of giving thanks at meals upon this text, but it hath a clearer warrant from Mt 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Ac 27:35.
> He eateth not, and giveth God thanks; because he hath meat enough besides, which he is not forbidden, 1Co 10:28.



That is my exegesis as I echo Poole's sentiments. So, per your charge of being my own exegete and authority I am now cleared. I don't fall on Poole or any other mortal man as my standard, but the Spirit of God bears witness that this is a proper exegesis of the passage. I think this would classify bwsmith as the weaker brother in this case.

Maybe I'm wrong in doing so, but until she makes it a matter of the law then I don't think I am. She hasn't done that. It sounds more like she is saying all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. 

See Poole:



> 1Co 10:23
> Ver. 23. All things here must necessarily signify many things, or, at least, (as some think), all those things I have spoken of, to eat meat offered to idols, &c. But if we interpret it in the latter sense, it is not true without limitations; for the apostle had but now determined, that to eat meat offered to idols in the idol's temple, was to have communion with devils. I had rather therefore interpret all by many, as that universal particle must be interpreted in a great multitude of scriptures. *So as the sense is: There are many things that are lawful which are not expedient; that is, considered in themselves, under due circumstances, they are lawful, but considered in such and such circumstances, are not so, because they are not for the profit or good, but the hurt and disadvantage, of others. Thus the apostle himself expounds it in the latter clause of the verse, where he saith, they edify not, that is, they tend not to promote the gospel, or the faith and holiness of particular Christians*.



If she is saying that in this case then I believe things have gone too far. If she is saying more than that then she will answer for that. In which case I still believe she would fall under the passage of

*II Thessalonians 3:14-15*, "_And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. *Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother*_."

I believe that would apply if she were making abstinence a matter of the law. Then if there was no repentance, we both understand the ramifications of that.

I just don't think she went that far. She hasn't said so either. Everyone keeps saying she implied this or that, but she never made it a matter of the law.

I'm not going to keep going around in circles over this issue. I'm done with it. God bless.


----------



## crhoades

bwsmith said:


> I am sorry you feel an admonition for wise conduct with (dangerous) substances is akin to Paul’s warning in Col 2:21-22 against the yoke of ceremonial law.


 
And herein is where we differ. I would not have inserted the word dangerous. It is a substance that can be misused. So can a knife, car, gun, food etc. I'm sure you wouldn't write when you drive your (dangerous) car or cut meat for dinner with a (dangerous) knife. You are loading language and calling God's wonderful provision into question and are being overly wise.

And as far as the ceremonial law is concerned, at least God was the one commanded which things to abstain from. I would listen to Him. If He said not to drink wine I wouldn't. The Colossian believers weren't listening to what God had changed regarding the ceremonial law. As a matter of fact neither did the Judiazers regarding circumcision. They were just wanting to add 1 thing to the gospel.

Christ Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Scripture Alone, To God Alone be the Glory.

Herein lies Christian Liberty. 

It is diminished if we move towards:
Christ Plus, Faith Plus, Grace Plus, Scripture Plus, etc...


----------



## bwsmith

crhoades said:


> And herein is where we differ. I would not have inserted the word dangerous. It is a substance that can be misused. So can a knife, car, gun, food etc. I'm sure you wouldn't write when you drive your (dangerous) car or cut meat for dinner with a (dangerous) knife. You are loading language and calling God's wonderful provision into question and are being overly wise.
> 
> And as far as the ceremonial law is concerned, at least God was the one commanded which things to abstain from. I would listen to Him. If He said not to drink wine I wouldn't. The Colossian believers weren't listening to what God had changed regarding the ceremonial law. As a matter of fact neither did the Judiazers regarding circumcision. They were just wanting to add 1 thing to the gospel.
> 
> Christ Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Scripture Alone, To God Alone be the Glory.
> 
> Herein lies Christian Liberty.
> 
> It is diminished if we move towards:
> Christ Plus, Faith Plus, Grace Plus, Scripture Plus, etc...



I inserted parentheses around dangerous because for some it is not dangerous. And if you ever have the time to review the outlines, you might understand that warning people, esp. Christians, is not the same as adding to the Gospel


----------



## bwsmith

SemperFideles said:


> Unless you have some Scriptural interaction to offer with respect to the subject of Christian liberty, I have already noted that this thread will not take up the subject of alcohol consumption again. That thread was closed.



I did offer "interaction." And I answered a question that was posed -- disavowing Judaising in my admonitions -- perhaps you need to redirect your comment to the man who asked the question?


----------



## crhoades

bwsmith said:


> I inserted parentheses around dangerous because for some it is not dangerous. And if you ever have the time to review the outlines, you might understand that warning people, esp. Christians, is not the same as adding to the Gospel


I reviewed the outline that you provided the link for. McArthur is warning against drunkenness. Nowhere did he say that it was unwise to drink at all and caution against it. Cautioning people to not sin by becoming drunk is not adding to the Gospel. Telling people it is unwise to drink is.

And secondly you missed my point. Alcohol is not dangerous. It is the person who misuses and their heart that is dangerous. Alcohol is _never_ dangerous.


----------



## Barnpreacher

crhoades said:


> And for what it's worth regarding flaunting liberty...I'm going to Atlanta this weekend with my Dad to see the Cardinals play the Braves. He is very anti-alcohol - General Baptist tee-totaler. I will not have a beer at the game although I would like to have one. I was on a business trip to Atlanta earlier this year and had a beer at the game. It is about respect for me. I have no problem reasoning with my Dad and pointing out that he is adding to the gospel and have done so in the past humbly.



brother. Chris,

Paul says in Romans 14:14, "_I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: *but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean*_."

I guess this is where I don't follow. How can you tell your dad he is adding to the gospel when Paul doesn't even take that stand? Does your dad tell you that you are breaking the law of God when you drink? If that's the case then I agree with what you're saying. If not, then I don't understand. And this goes back to the conversation with bwsmith. I never saw her tell anyone they are breaking the law of God when they drink. She simply believes alcohol is unclean to herself. And Paul says to her and your dad it is unclean and it would act against their conscience to drink. That would be sin to them.

See Poole:



> But to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean: this he adds by way of restriction, that though no meat was unclean in itself, yet it was so to him that thought it to be unclean. If a man shall believe that there is yet a difference in meats, that some are still unclean, and that by virtue of God's prohibition, it would be evil in him to eat such meats, because he therein acts against his conscience, and doth that which he himself thinks to be a sin: see Ro 14:23.



God Bless.


----------



## Barnpreacher

> But to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean: this he adds by way of restriction, that though no meat was unclean in itself, yet it was so to him that thought it to be unclean. If a man shall believe that there is yet a difference in meats, that some are still unclean, and that by virtue of God's prohibition, it would be evil in him to eat such meats, because he therein acts against his conscience, and doth that which he himself thinks to be a sin: see Ro 14:23.



And this is where I think some of you guys who weren't brought up in a fundamental church struggle to see where some people are coming from. Some Christians have had it pounded into them from day one that drinking is a sin. So, even if they come to a fuller understanding of Romans 6 it isn't always a simple thing for them to drop that conviction that has been harped on and pounded into their heads all their lives. Much like it wasn't an easy thing for the early Jews to stop believing that not all meats were clean. Yet, Paul was patient and longsuffering with these folks as he treated them like weaker brethren.


----------



## crhoades

Barnpreacher said:


> brother. Chris,
> 
> Paul says in Romans 14:14, "_I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: *but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean*_."
> 
> I guess this is where I don't follow. How can you tell your dad he is adding to the gospel when Paul doesn't even take that stand? Does your dad tell you that you are breaking the law of God when you drink? If that's the case then I agree with what you're saying. If not, then I don't understand. And this goes back to the conversation with bwsmith. I never saw her tell anyone they are breaking the law of God when they drink. She simply believes alcohol is unclean to herself. And Paul says to her and your dad it is unclean and it would act against their conscience to drink. That would be sin to them.


 
I follow you completely. As a matter of fact my Dad has told me that he prays to God that he would make it bitter to my taste and that I would stop. You have to understand that I was brought up in a very legalistic church with very strict parents. Of course I rebelled when I went to college and did almost everything known to man in the realm of drugs and alcohol. Total prohibition has led to more abuse of alcohol in the church than a proper teaching of its proper use. 

If bwsmith had ever stated that for her it was unclean but have at it just don't get drunk I would be completely cool with that. That is Rom. 14 as you stated. But the term unwise etc. was added to it. I asked point blank a couple of times without an answer if I drank a beer would I be sinning. Even if the answer is no I would still not be preferred to be thought of as foolish.


----------



## non dignus

If short pants are thought of as unclean should I wear them in the presence of the one who thinks they are? Maybe my choice of music is unclean to my neighbor; do I have to list all his scruples in order to organize my life?


----------



## Barnpreacher

I want to apologize. I have been so busy harping on giving bwsmith the benefit of the doubt according to Romans 14 that I have failed to give the opposing party the benefit of the doubt.

One of Carolina Calvinist's posts made me stop and think today when he said something about the way that bwsmith used the term unwise. Now, Chris's post has hit home.

I can see where her use of the term "unwise" could be taken the wrong way. And from that perspective I can see why some are defending their position so vigorously. I apologize for coming across as indifferent to that side of this issue. I can understand where you guys are coming from in your defense. I don't think I would stretch it out as far as Rich has, though. But if that's what he feels he must do then I pray God is working in the matter somehow.

 Sheesh, I've thought about this thing WAY TOO much today. I don't see how some of you guys can be on this board so much. Talk about a hangover headache!


----------



## crhoades

Barnpreacher said:


> I want to apologize. I have been so busy harping on giving bwsmith the benefit of the doubt according to Romans 14 that I have failed to give the opposing party the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> One of Carolina Calvinist's posts made me stop and think today when he said something about the way that bwsmith used the term unwise. Now, Chris's post has hit home.
> 
> I can see where her use of the term "unwise" could be taken the wrong way. And from that perspective I can see why some are defending their position so vigorously. I apologize for coming across as indifferent to that side of this issue. I can understand where you guys are coming from in your defense. I don't think I would stretch it out as far as Rich has, though. But if that's what he feels he must do then I pray God is working in the matter somehow.
> 
> Sheesh, I've thought about this thing WAY TOO much today. I don't see how some of you guys can be on this board so much. Talk about a hangover headache!


 
May this last portion of my earlier post comfort you. You have been seeking peace between parties. Bless you. You are promised that God will be with you for your efforts.





> James 3:17-1817 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.


 



> 2 Corinthians 13:1111 ¶ Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.


----------



## Barnpreacher

crhoades said:


> May this last portion of my earlier post comfort you. You have been seeking peace between parties. Bless you. You are promised that God will be with you for your efforts.



God bless you for your gracious words, Chris. I only wish I had been as gracious with everything I have said throughout this thread. You're right about my intentions, but I also let emotion play in there too much from time to time. You have brought this thread to closure for me on a blessed note, and you have instructed me as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Barnpreacher said:


> I want to apologize. I have been so busy harping on giving bwsmith the benefit of the doubt according to Romans 14 that I have failed to give the opposing party the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> One of Carolina Calvinist's posts made me stop and think today when he said something about the way that bwsmith used the term unwise. Now, Chris's post has hit home.
> 
> I can see where her use of the term "unwise" could be taken the wrong way. And from that perspective I can see why some are defending their position so vigorously. I apologize for coming across as indifferent to that side of this issue. I can understand where you guys are coming from in your defense. I don't think I would stretch it out as far as Rich has, though. But if that's what he feels he must do then I pray God is working in the matter somehow.
> 
> Sheesh, I've thought about this thing WAY TOO much today. I don't see how some of you guys can be on this board so much. Talk about a hangover headache!


 
I do appreciate you trying to see what we've been trying to say. In some ways, I wish that bwsmith would have to speak for herself because the discussions are obscuring some interactions. I'm asking you, in peace, to please hear me out and pretend like nothing came before and that I was gravely concerned about a sister's view of the Gospel. It _sounds_ mean but it is a real concern for me so please bear with me as I develop why this has been my focus when some others thought I was just being uncharitable.

First you wrote above:


Barnpreacher said:


> See Poole:
> 
> That is my exegesis as I echo Poole's sentiments. So, per your charge of being my own exegete and authority I am now cleared. I don't fall on Poole or any other mortal man as my standard, but the Spirit of God bears witness that this is a proper exegesis of the passage. I think this would classify bwsmith as the weaker brother in this case.


Brother - Poole echos Calvin. He echoes the point about the direct application of the verse being about Mosaic scruples. If you agree with Poole then we're in violent agreement. 

NOW, what you need to do for me, please, is to pretend that we're not talking about alcohol at all. I've said that many times but as soon as I challenged bwsmith, some people shut down and just thought I was being mean.

I detected something early on in her posts that concerned me. Concern was heightened because something very similar happened a few months ago and I started putting two and two together.

From the moment I began the "interrogation", I have been aiming at one single goal: to see if bwsmith can articulate a Gospel motivation for something.

I want to quote myself here and I want you to read me again, cleanly, as if you and I have not been arguing over bwsmith because it wasn't about you and me to begin with:


> I think what you keep missing is that I would hope that you would want to encourage people, first and foremost, to be impelled by the fact that they are united to Christ by their belief in the Gospel. Paul knew how bad sins were but he, when he talked about them, he didn't motivate Christians to avoid them because the Law tells you not to do it or because it is unwise, but He motivated them on the basis of their union with Christ. I kept saying this over and over and over and over. I kept wondering: "Why doesn't bwsmith hear the regular call of the Apostle in what is to motivate us?"
> 
> I would have hoped, up to now, that you would have at least said: "Rich, I get what you're saying. You're worried that I don't understand what Paul says about our Union with Christ and our motivation for things. Don't worry, I understand that."
> 
> Instead, you kept referring back to other motivations: fear of entrapment, being fooolish, etc.
> 
> I keep wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt but the idea of union with Christ that informs Romans 14 seems foreign to you.
> 
> Read my previous post please as I typed while you were doing so and then let me know what you think.
> 
> I know this is hard. This is torturous for me because I really, really, really want to give you the benefit of the doubt but I can't hear the Gospel coming out of you. Maybe I'm thick though.


 
There. I broke down any pretense about what any other concern might have been before. If you don't believe that this is what every post of mine has been about fundamentally then read every post that preceded in the light of this single quote: I am concerned that bwsmith cannot articulate a Reformed understanding of what it means to live to Christ _on the basis of our union with Christ_. 

Fundamental to the Christian faith is the idea that the Law itself does not empower the person to obey the thing it commands. As I've said over and over, when Paul enjoins believers to obey it's always like this:
[bible]Romans 6:1-4[/bible]

Put simply, why do we obey? Because we're united to Christ. Why do we strive for wisdom? Because we're united to Christ. Why are we able to obey? Because we are united to Christ. What is our *motivation*? Our union with Christ.

I have repeated this so many times, Ryan. I apologize if I've somehow obscured it but now that you've seen it again, I want you to note what bwsmith's response was to my concern that she wasn't understanding this:



> With respect, I am united to God by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ – and I understand also from Paul a thorn, real and ruinous, is part of the battle which Christ will overcome. Four times in Romans, Paul counseled his readers to be wise, lest they become fools; be wise – not in their own eyes, but in what is good.
> 
> Yes, you surely have the right to drink anything you want – as I have the right to point out the danger of seeking comfort and joy in that which has been corrupted by the Fall. (as per the outline I cited from John MacArthur)


Seriously, Ryan, do you note the brevity with which she simply says: "Yes, I'm united to God by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ" but then, from my perspective, she seems to completely miss the point?

She doesn't dwell for even a second on that fact. She doesn't dwell for a second on that power. Look at every post throughout both threads that bwsmith has posted. That's the only time she mentions union with Christ and doesn't even express it as a MOTIVATION for obedience.

What does she do? The post is a: "Well of course I'm united to Christ BUT what should be motivating you is this...."

Not only does she mis-interpret Paul's "four uses of the word wise" (as if the mere mention of the word sustains what she's saying - it does not) but the point is that Paul does not command believers to be wise for the sake of being wise. Thus, she sadly misses my point (and Paul's point in Romans 6).

Yes, Paul says to be wise. BUT WHY?!!!!

The answer determines what you think union with Christ is.

bwsmith posts as if "be wise" is an end to itself. Be wise is NOT the motivation.

I frankly initially expected when I would use the term "Gospel Motivation" that she knew what I was talking about so I simplified it and spelled it out. The MOTIVATION to be wise _is_ our Union with Christ.

It is _because_ we are united to Christ that we are able, motivated, desirous, and love to obey. It is _because_ you are united to Christ Ryan that I am to bear with you. I pointed this out at least twice here to her that the basis of the MOTIVATION in Romans 14 is union with Christ:


> *Romans 14* (I've broken this down between passages that speak of what Christ has done (motivation) and our resultant action toward our brothers (result)
> 
> *Motivation:* 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
> *Result:* 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother?
> *Motivation:* For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
> " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
> 'every knee will bow before me;
> every tongue will confess to God.' " 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
> *Result:* 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
> *Result:* 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.
> *Motivation:* Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
> *Result:* 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.


 
Thus, her response above completely baffles me. I simply cannot think of a more penultimate concern than someone who, presented with union with Christ as a motivation, flies right past that point and moves on to other motivations as if the first is merely peripheral.

You may find it uncharitable but, brother, I beseech you to look at her posts in whole context. She only ever mentioned it because I finally asked her point blank even though I said it over and over and over again. For her to not key in on this critical aspect of the Gospel and move on as if a side issue, an insignificant point is alarming to the first degree. I frankly cannot think of something more disqualifying in a Confessional sense.

I'm beseeching you to understand my concern because I think we all need to try and encourage her to understand this better. I know I'm overly tenacious but this has alarmed me for 2 days and I think it's being buried under a discussion about alcohol - I could care less about alcohol but I do care that a person understands what union with Christ means to the believer. This culminating post has been my point the ENTIRE TIME. Alcohol, food, dental floss, shorts, etc were all completely tangential. Every other religion on the planet can scare you away from unwise behavior but only union with Christ empowers to live to the Glory of God to enjoy Him forever!


----------



## kvanlaan

Chris, as to your question on the beer in your fridge (and please understand that I cringe to be sticking my head above the parapet here) I would simply say that if your motivation is physical thirst, it is in keeping with the role of alcohol as a blessing. If your motive is the need for a buzz/other satisfaction, then it is sin. Insert any food or drink and the rule stays the same.

I would need a while to back this up scripturally, but I would have to say that it all comes down to motivation. If you are _truly_ (passing all tests presented by scripture) lead by the Spirit to do _anything_, I would say it is lawful and profitable. But the 'holiest' and most pious of actions are soiled into sin if they are done for the wrong reasons. I don't think the object matters in this case - food, alcohol, guns, tiddlywinks, you name it. There are some things that _are_ intrinsically evil, but that's a matter for another thread.

I went to a Southern Baptist university and have heard all the reasons as to why alcohol is evil and why there is no way that alcoholic beverages were the same strength in Biblical times as they are now. That's a red herring. 

Do we then delve into scripture to try and divine an acceptable alcohol content? 4%? 12%? 17.5%? What? Where's the line? Excess is excess and even Oklahoma's 3.6% beer could get you drunk (and worse is this - you could drink it all day and stay drunk all day because it would never overwhelm you!) But I digress, and don't want to get into that argument - sorry.

Chris, if you want the beer so bad you would be willing to chew through the fridge door to get it _because_ of the fact that it is beer and therefore alcohol-laced, then for pity's sake man, stay away from it (and get yourself some help! ) But if you are thirsty and looking forward to the cold, crisp taste of a thirst-quenching beverage, then enjoy it and thank the Lord for his grace in fulfilling your every need and many of your wants.

If, in the morning, you wake from sleep and _need_ a coffee to get going, and your body craves the caffeine, _don't touch it_. There's a pattern there...


----------



## BobVigneault

Kevin, you said:



> If your motive is the need for a buzz/other satisfaction, then it is sin. Insert any food or drink and the rule stays the same.



I have proposed before that when Psalm 104 says that God gave wine to gladden the heart that we are speaking of a physiological effect. In the modern vernacular we call that effect a 'buzz'. I can't say that getting a buzz is a sin. Wine makes a person relax and sit down, in fellowship it sets you at ease and makes you open up your feelings a bit more, it warms. Without getting drunk (sin) wine brings about physiological changes that are beneficial.

Other things make glad. Proverbs tells us a good word makes glad. I know that holding my babies makes me glad. A job well done makes me glad. Having you for a friend, though we've never met, makes me glad. So why does David single out wine, not just because of the flavor but because it soothes, warms and makes glad.

Now, does *needing* a 'buzz' constitute sin? Well, does needing prozac or some pharmaceutical help constitute sin? Are there times of stress when one might need a little help to 'make the heart glad'? Of course.

We need to be careful what we call sin. Do not go further than scripture goes.

Psalm 104:14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15 and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man's heart.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK gentlemen. Let's keep the discussion on topic.

I was just thinking about this: Why is it that when we talk about Christian Liberty and the "Weaker Brother", the only example anyone can ever come up with is somebody that does/doesn't drink alchohol?

I think that says volumes.

I mean to keep this on track as to the broader principle and prescriptions over what does/doesn't constitute too much alchohol is off topic.

Thanks!


----------



## sotzo

May I nominate this thread for inclusion in the PB historical archives / timecapsule? Years from now, our covenant children will all be on the PB and say, "Wow...I remember mom/dad talking about this thread". It will be sort of like the reaction I had when my mother revealed the stacks and stacks of 45rpm records my dad accumulated during his DJ days...I guess that analogy breaks down though because this thread has nothing to do with Creedence Clearwater Revivial....or _does_ it?

Lightheartedness aside, I like discussing each and every Biblical principle on the PB. However, the Gospel is inherently lived out in the lives of believers when face to face in community. Discussing _how_ believers ought to live in community and actually _living_ in community are two different things...the former is quite suited for the PB, the latter much less so...especially when much of the learning that goes in to proper use of Christian liberty can only be done by knowing my brother face to face...at a dinner table for example.

I only say this because at the end of the day, I think the NT apostolic witness for Christian living shows there are some issues which believers must deal with incarnately...that is, in person. Rather than writing a letter to Peter, Paul waited and opposed him to his face. 

I'm not saying that this one instance of Paul's actions are normative for us. What I am saying is that when it comes to Christian liberty the context is communal to the highest degree, which makes internet msg boards a very difficult place to influence each other for the cause of the Gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

sotzo said:


> I only say this because at the end of the day, I think the NT apostolic witness for Christian living shows there are some issues which believers must deal with incarnately...that is, in person. Rather than writing a letter to Peter, Paul waited and opposed him to his face.


Not to argue but, as it is related in Galatians, it appears that Paul rebuked Peter right as it happened. It wasn't something he heard about and waited to tell him. He saw it and, in the presence of everyone, Paul rebuked him. That had to have been extremely uncomfortable for Peter.



> I'm not saying that this one instance of Paul's actions are normative for us. What I am saying is that when it comes to Christian liberty the context is communal to the highest degree, which makes internet msg boards a very difficult place to influence each other for the cause of the Gospel.


I do agree with you to a large extent, believe it or not. I've said this before, this Admin gig is a great blessing but sometimes I hate it for the positions it puts me in. Like it or not, I'm in an extra-ecclesiastical position where I have to judge (rightly or wrongly) the orthodoxy of people to determine whether they can participate here. I don't claim infallibility. I pray that it doesn't make me a meglo-maniac though some are likely convinced I already am. I do announce suspensions to every Mod and Admin and I rely upon them to give me feedback.

But, in the end, the "polity" here will be less deliberate than other venues. I'm also a much nicer guy in person than I am here because I have a role to play and I try to remain faithful to that role. I bear with people much better in person than I do here because, in one case, I'm in physical fellowship while here, the person merely has a privilege to participate on a board so long as they fall within the boundaries set by the forum rules and Confessional subscription.

I do appreciate the feedback though and am not unmindful of it.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## bwsmith

“. . . It sounds more like she is saying all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient.” 

And it sounds that way , because that is precisely what I mean.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Thanks, Rich. That post helped. I do see where you're going with the discussion now. I pray that God will remove all distractions from this particular thread and get all glory. My apologies for getting in the way.


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> ...
> My biggest issue with all of this is that the term "wisdom" is being misused. When it is said that it is _unwise_ to handle, taste, or touch X it is using worldly wisdom. ...



Chris,

Would you agree, that in areas of Christian liberty there may be times and circumstances where it is unwise to take advantage of those liberties?


----------



## sotzo

> I'm also a much nicer guy in person...



A tender-hearted Marine??!! I'll need to write the DI's back at Paris Island and let them know they need to ratchet up their intensity to avoid this in future recruits!


----------



## tcalbrecht

bwsmith said:


> With respect, I am united to God by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ – and I understand also from Paul a thorn, real and ruinous, is part of the battle which Christ will overcome. Four times in Romans, Paul counseled his readers to be wise, lest they become fools; be wise – not in their own eyes, but in what is good.
> 
> Yes, you surely have the right to drink anything you want – *as I have the right to point out the danger of seeking comfort and joy in that which has been corrupted by the Fall.*  (as per the outline I cited from John MacArthur)



Using another example, marriage has been corrupted by the fall. The Scriptures repeatedly speaks of the comfort and joy to be found in marriage, even for the unrighteous. 

I'm still missing the danger part of the equation, unless all you are saying is that enjoying a good beer is no more dangerous, spiritually speaking, than enjoying one's marriage, since everything created has been touched by the fall.

I think that we can agree on.


----------



## Civbert

tcalbrecht said:


> ... I'm still missing the danger part of the equation, unless all you are saying is that enjoying a good beer is no more dangerous, spiritually speaking, than enjoying one's marriage, since everything created has been touched by the fall.....



If you think getting married isn't dangerous, you must still be single!!


----------



## tcalbrecht

Civbert said:


> If you think getting married isn't dangerous, you must still be single!!



I said "no more dangerous". After 32 years, I know all too well the dangers of marriage.


----------



## kvanlaan

Ok Bob, point taken.  Also, we are, I think, dealing with broader principles here - this is not to be tied to alcohol alone. Otherwise we are going to start splitting hairs on what constitutes a 'buzz' and when that becomes drunkenness... etc., etc. But if we look to eating, for instance: if we have a desire to eat that is not to sustain us, that is, we are full but continue to eat for the experiential satisfaction, are we not sliding into gluttony? Also, when the desire to quench thirst or sate hunger is fulfilled and we continue to consume to excess, what then is that? 



> Now, does needing a 'buzz' constitute sin? Well, does needing prozac or some pharmaceutical help constitute sin? Are there times of stress when one might need a little help to 'make the heart glad'? Of course.



Here is where I think our faith must step in. We often talk with the children at the table after dinner (for catechism and bible study) and get into issues of avoiding worldliness and how we react to stress, weariness, etc. We try to hammer home to them that when we are empty emotionally, we are to refill at His refreshment stand (sorry, that was REALLY corny. Ouch.) Why do we so often race to drink out of the cesspool that the World offers us when we have the cool water of the Gospel at hand? When I have had a really bad day at work, I come here, see that Bob is a cult leader and Rich is his 'big hair' prophet, and my heart is glad. And it is _full_ - sometimes to the point of tears of joy. I am refilled by interacting with my brothers and sisters in Christ and I am glad; I know I am blessed beyond measure by my friends here. I do not need to 'go down to Egypt' to take the edge off - I have my Lord and fellow saints to sustain me. My wife is my best friend and encourages me in all things. What need is there for prozac or the like? There is none. Tough times come, but they pass. 

I can't sit here and say that I have seen the bottom of the pit - I have not. God has thus far preserved me from time in an emotional abyss. But we have sat for almost ten interminable years waiting for our daughter and missed a score of weddings and funerals because of it. You want a recipe for depression? Go to the rustiest, most polluted part of the American rustbelt and chain yourself to it for a decade. Then add people who tell you that you are stupid to try to help an orphan, an ugly one at that, add government folks that tell you it will _never_ happen if they can help it and that it will cost you too much money, etc. etc. etc. and play that in a loop for ten years. Throw in the fact that a bag (yep, it comes in bags) of white lightning cost only $.15 each and the bottle starts to look like a good friend. 

Look up.

You can't but keep looking up because looking down will make you retch. I can't condemn those who use Prozac and the like (and please don't take offense at these comments), but it is not part of God's plan for my life - _He_ has thus far been sufficient and will continue to be.

That is all to say that while I can see that scripture points to wine being acceptable to make a heart glad, I see a _desire_ to replace Him with anything else to satisfy my needs as being not from Him. Hence the hanging on the motivational point. 

Oh, and Rich, if you look at some of the 'cultural warfare' discussions, you will see that there _are_ indeed things besides drinking which make for 'weaker brother' accusations. I've got a number to my credit and cherish each and every one!  (But yeah, typically it is drinking that makes up the bulk of the finger-pointing.)


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> ... And secondly you missed my point. Alcohol is not dangerous. It is the person who misuses and their heart that is dangerous. Alcohol is _never_ dangerous.



Yes, yes. But neither are guns, matches, motorcycles, knives, fire, dynamite, etc. It's the person who misuses them that a dangerous. 

Are we not to warn people of dangers involved if we see them? Do we need to have a biblical reference to tell people that it is unwise to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Would not the argument necessarrily involve wordly information? Would not a Christian be neglecting his duty to his brothers if he did not warn them of the dangerous he percieves in their actions, right or wrong? 

And please don't miss my question to you:


Civbert said:


> Chris,
> 
> Would you agree, that in areas of Christian liberty there may be times and circumstances where it is unwise to take advantage of those liberties?



Although addressed to Chris Rhoades, anyone is welcome to answer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Yes, yes. But neither are guns, matches, motorcycles, knives, fire, dynamite, etc. It's the person who misuses them that a dangerous.
> 
> Are we not to warn people of dangers involved if we see them? Do we need to have a biblical reference to tell people that it is unwise to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Would not the argument necessarrily involve wordly information? Would not a Christian be neglecting his duty to his brothers if he did not warn them of the dangerous he percieves in their actions, right or wrong?


I answered that question above with respect to children and maturity.

Yes, we warn them - but the principle motivation is not the danger. The principle motivation is doxology.



> And please don't miss my question to you:
> 
> Although addressed to Chris Rhoades, anyone is welcome to answer.


Yes, I said this too. Some have been unable to read that I strongly acknowledged this but, yet again, this became about whether or not a Gospel motivation, which then informed a physical warning, could be articulated.

Here's my post again to calgal:



SemperFideles said:


> Yes, you're correct, Gail that liberty is not for license sake. Paul anticipates that attitude in Romans 6. We are to understand that we are freed from the Law's condemnation and our union with Christ in His death and resurrection is supposed to impel us to righteousness. We are slaves to Christ and to righteousness.
> 
> Now, that said, are all those in Christ mature enough to exercise this liberty without guidance? No, I've never argued that. I even acknowledged the point that, as parents guide their children, so we are to help others as they mature in prudence.
> 
> But it's all in how you discipline. I remember this one lady who was yelling at her 3 year old son about walking away from her. She exclaimed: "Don't ever do that again. Somebody could take you away forever and then Mommy would be really sad." I was horrified. The kid was oblivious. As a motivation for him to not run away it was way over the head of a three year old.
> 
> When I discipline my own children, I don't tell them not to do a thing because it is bad and I don't want them to be bad. I repeatedly give them the motivation that "... this pleases God...."
> 
> We all understand how discipline works and how maturity works. If my 5 year old son came up to me and asked me, is it OK to cross the street, I would not have a problem giving him a "law" at his age. If, when he is 22 years old, he is still asking me if it's OK to cross the street then I have failed miserably as a father to train self-discipline into the man.
> 
> Wisdom begins at times looking like Law but the goal is a self-disciplined exercise in liberty. The impelling nature of that self-discipline in a mature Christian MUST be a heart that desires to please God. Outwardly, two men can appear to be the same in the way they _behave_ but inwardly if a man's motivation is not bent to Christ then it's all a white-washed sepulchre.
> 
> The other day we were studying Malachi and one of the woman asked: "What do you tell people that don't go to Church because they don't want to tithe?"
> 
> I told her that my first concern was that such people were, first and foremost, focusing on the tithe as a law. Such men reveal the Gospel has not penetrated their hearts at all that they view the tithe in the manner of pure obligation.
> 
> I told her to tell them: "I'm more worried about the fact that you're not hearing the Gospel. You need to be in Church to hear that because your response indicates that you don't believe the Gospel."
> 
> Thus, when we live in light of heart's transformed, we ought to be on a tireless quest to pursue the things that please God. It ought to flow naturally from us. Some, in that pursuit of truth, come to differing conclusions. Some are "weaker" in their conclusions and being scrupulous in a manner that exceeds what God is fully calling them to. Those that have been convinced otherwise ought to appreciate, in the weaker brother, that the convictions are held for Christ's sake and not judge them therein. Those that are weaker ought to, likewise, judge that the stronger brother has come to a differing conviction but, still, _for Christ's sake_.
> 
> BUT, and here is the but that needs to be pointed out, not all convictions are for Christ's sake and we need to evaluate the way in which the injunction is being argued. Maybe it is a weaker brother and, in spite of the Word's injunction, he is judging his brother when he ought not. He needs to be reminded that its inappropriate.
> 
> Worse yet, though, are those cases where the motivation for a thing is never couched for Christ's sake. That should cause concern and a bit of digging to determine what is going on. It may be that such a person may not understand the Gospel well at all or may, in fact, not be a brother at all.
> 
> This is why how we exercise our liberty and talk about our liberty is a good guage on how we understand the Gospel.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> I answered that question above with respect to children and maturity.
> 
> Yes, we warn them - but the principle motivation is not the danger. The principle motivation is doxology.



These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can not be. If I am convinced there is danger, my motivation to "love my neighbor" dictates that I warn my brother. You show your love for God by obedience to his Law. And the summary of the Law concerning our brothers and neighbors is to love them as we love ourselves. Nor do I condemn my brother for warning me of any danger they are convinced of. I assume the warning is motivated by their love towards God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

But now the motivation is not the danger, Anthony, but love of neighbor. I don't disagree. The point is that one does not have the ability, inherently, to love one's neighbor unless they be born again from above. Further, love of neighbor can only be informed and fully impelled by the fact that they are created in the image of the God who loved us before with loved Him. The reason all sorts of social injustice occurs in Amos begins with idolatry. All the sins then follow (Romans 1). Thus, we aim at the heart first and work on the motivation to have the actions naturally follow.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> I
> Here's my post again to calgal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...BUT, and here is the but that needs to be pointed out, not all convictions are for Christ's sake and we need to evaluate the way in which the injunction is being argued. Maybe it is a weaker brother and, in spite of the Word's injunction, he is judging his brother when he ought not. He needs to be reminded that its inappropriate.
> 
> Worse yet, though, are those cases where the motivation for a thing is never couched for Christ's sake. That should cause concern and a bit of digging to determine what is going on. It may be that such a person may not understand the Gospel well at all or may, in fact, not be a brother at all.
> 
> This is why how we exercise our liberty and talk about our liberty is a good gage on how we understand the Gospel.
Click to expand...


I don't think we can truly "evaluate the way in which the injunction is being argued" beyond what is actually being said. Going beyond that is a violation of Paul's admonition not to harshly judge our brothers in Rom 14. I don't think we are called to "evaluate" the heart of the person. It would not matter if the person says, "be careful of the danger", or "be careful of the danger for Christ's sake", because a false brother will give the warning as readily in terms of "Christ's sake" as a true brother will.

How we talk about liberty only extends to the point of asking if someone is being legalistic by adding to the law, or if someone is trying to be obedient to the intent of the law. If we understand the Gospel, we will not condemn our brothers for holding convictions they are convinced in their own minds about. We can disagree with them, but we may not judge their motives as false in areas of liberty.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I said it was a point of concern. Elders would be expected to work with people on their apprehension of such things. I agree that we should not be roughshod in the Church over such things. If you read it again, you'll notice there is a progression, beginning with the assumption that the brother is weak. The portion you quoted might proceed along the lines of Matthew 18 in the worst cases but it's never done capriciously. Brevity, and the purpose of this thread, didn't permit me to spell it out. The example of the woman in my Church was used not in the sense that I would judge her but in the sense that I would care to ensure that she understands the Gospel if she's not able to express it.

This place is imperfect as I've already noted and not well suited for such things but I still have certain responsibilities here. I do not relish them.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

“Christian liberty is an internal thing; it belongs to the mind and conscience, and has a direct reference to God. The use of Christian liberty is an external thing; it belongs to conduct, and has reference to man. No consideration should prevail on us for a moment to give up our liberty; but many a consideration should induce us to forego the practical assertion or display of our liberty.” 

--John Brown. 2001. Galatians. The Banner of Truth Trust; Carlisle, PA; p. 286.


----------



## calgal

SemperFideles said:


> I said it was a point of concern. Elders would be expected to work with people on their apprehension of such things. I agree that we should not be roughshod in the Church over such things. If you read it again, you'll notice there is a progression, beginning with the assumption that the brother is weak. The portion you quoted might proceed along the lines of Matthew 18 in the worst cases but it's never done capriciously. Brevity, and the purpose of this thread, didn't permit me to spell it out. The example of the woman in my Church was used not in the sense that I would judge her but in the sense that I would care to ensure that she understands the Gospel if she's not able to express it.
> 
> This place is imperfect as I've already noted and not well suited for such things but I still have certain responsibilities here. I do not relish them.



Thanks Rich! I have seen the "fundie fencing" (for lack of a better word) any number of activities (dancing, drinking and attire being the most popular areas for regulation) and the inability to adhere to the man made regulations (secret drinking and dancing). In my opinion, the fencing was a greater problem than the "worldly" behaviors the holiness folks sought to avoid. Liberty mistaken for license is a problem as well but it seems the "nanny" mindset used by a lot of Evangelicals lead to situations like the following:

I attended a Wesleyan church when I was younger. The college and careers group I was part of decided to have a New Years Eve party. Now part of the requirements for membership in this church were Baptism by immersion and agreeing to abide by the Holiness rules. That meant no alcohol, premarital s*x or dancing. This became a problem for the party organizers. See they had hired a DJ (but there was "no dancing") and when they alluded to dancing they made it very obvious that the party would not exactly be a hymn sing in the fellowship hall.  I was a very new Christian and this bothered me a lot. The written rules were quite obvious and there was no way to get around "members of Finney Wesleyan Church will NOT dance." Hypocritical? You bet it was! I prefer to be treated as an adult than have decisions made for me. In other words holiness is annoying at best and unbiblical at worst.


----------



## MW

> “Christian liberty is an internal thing; it belongs to the mind and conscience, and has a direct reference to God. The use of Christian liberty is an external thing; it belongs to conduct, and has reference to man. No consideration should prevail on us for a moment to give up our liberty; but many a consideration should induce us to *forego the practical assertion or display of our liberty*.”
> 
> --John Brown. 2001. Galatians. The Banner of Truth Trust; Carlisle, PA; p. 286.



 Emphasis added. Asserting our liberty on matters which should be kept private is a betrayal of true freedom, because we only reveal that we are bound to justify our actions to others or impose them upon others.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I completely agree. It is reciprocal, in fact, in Romans 14. There is an injunction to both the weaker and the stronger brother to stop passing judgment. This is not merely an admonition that we not pass judgment with our mouths but that we not judge them in our hearts.

For instance, imagine the case of an ancient potluck and a new Gentile believer arrives with pork chops. He's too naive to know that there are those that might be stumbled to sin by bringing them to the potluck. Nevertheless, the weaker brothers are commanded to bear with him in love. They are not to think it unwise of him that he is able to enjoy pork chops.

But, I would hope that an Elder at that meal would take the young man aside and explain to him that his fellow heirs in Christ may be tempted to sin by seeing him eat those pork chops - try as they might that they bear with him in love. The young man would then be impelled by his love of Christ and the love for those that Christ has died for. He'll exclaim: "May it never be. I'll never eat pork chops again in their presence because I love those whom Christ has died for!"

But, what would be a terrible shame, is if the Elder came to him and said: Don't you know that pork chops are dangerous? It may be OK for some Christians but many have died of disease from eating them. I know you know how to cook them and eat them safely but, I'm just saying, you can't be sure that the next time you eat pork chops may be your last."

In the first example, the young believer has been rightly impelled by the Elder to act in love toward his weaker brothers. In the second example, he has been wrongly impelled to act _purely_ out of fear with no reference to the reasons that Paul gives in Romans 14.


----------



## MW

Rich, I think your scenario fits well within a Rom. 14 context, where a person has scruples over something they believe their conscience is bound to observe. The weaker brother in such a situation is the one whose conscience cannot free itself from obsolete forms of obedience. Christian maturity runs deeper than that, as can be seen by a sound reading of 1st Corinthians. Not being taken in by empty rhetoric, not comparing ministers with ministers, dealing effectively with immorality and offences, remaining morally separate from the world, being sexually pure within marriage, being concerned over how our actions reflect on the reception of the gospel, attending ordinances of worship with consideration of others, using spiritual gifts to the advantage of the common good -- this is all a part of developing a mature Christian outlook. To make an overt stance on one's freedom to drink alcoholic beverages is immature, in my humble opinion, and yet it finds frequent expression on the Puritan board in various forums. The problem, as I perceive it, is not with enjoying a "quiet one," but with broadcasting one's liberty to the point of encouraging a "culture" of drinking.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Something worthy of consideration certainly. I was just thinking about the same thing as I typed the above.

I don't know if I agree that all expressions encourage the culture but, even if they don't, I think it might be worth hiding the Puritan Pub from those who don't wish to see those threads. In fact, I'm going to make that so.

This discussion has been narrowly focused to this point and distracted from being tightly focused on the subject because of my concerns.

I do wish, however, that we had begun this discussion with the _foundation_ for Christian liberty properly laid and then proceeded from there because it's a real shame that this conversation is occuring so late in the thread.

Some might see in this that it's all the same thing but it is not. The foundation I speak of is the below. Unfortunately, I could not seem to get some to acknowledge this paragraph and so I got stuck trying to get it affirmed. Without it, the rest of the discussions are in vain:


> Chapter XX
> Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience
> 
> II. The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;1 and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;2 from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;3 as also, in their free access to God,4 and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.5 All which were common also to believers under the law.6 But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;7 and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,8 and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.9
> 
> 1 TIT 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 1TH 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. GAL 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
> 
> 2 GAL 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father. COL 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. ACT 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. ROM 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
> 
> 3 ROM 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. PSA 119:71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. 1CO 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. ROM 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
> 
> 4 ROM 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
> 
> 5 ROM 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 1JO 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
> 
> 6 GAL 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
> 
> 7 GAL 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. ACT 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
> 
> 8 HEB 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
> 
> 9 JOH 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) 2CO 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.


----------



## Barnpreacher

SemperFideles said:


> Something worthy of consideration certainly. I was just thinking about the same thing as I typed the above.
> 
> I don't know if I agree that all expressions encourage the culture but, even if they don't, I think it might be worth hiding the Puritan Pub from those who don't wish to see those threads. In fact, I'm going to make that so.
> 
> This discussion has been narrowly focused to this point and distracted from being tightly focused on the subject because of my concerns.
> 
> I do wish, however, that we had begun this discussion with the _foundation_ for Christian liberty properly laid and then proceeded from there because it's a real shame that this conversation is occuring so late in the thread.
> 
> Some might see in this that it's all the same thing but it is not. The foundation I speak of is the below. Unfortunately, I could not seem to get some to acknowledge this paragraph and so I got stuck trying to get it affirmed. Without it, the rest of the discussions are in vain:



brother. Rich,

This is exactly why I started this thread. brother. Matthew expressed what I tried to say in the OP. My regret is that I used a specific example and it was wrong of me for singling one person out (even though I didn't do it to harm him). 





SemperFideles said:


> I completely agree. It is reciprocal, in fact, in Romans 14. There is an injunction to both the weaker and the stronger brother to stop passing judgment. This is not merely an admonition that we not pass judgment with our mouths but that we not judge them in our hearts.
> 
> For instance, imagine the case of an ancient potluck and a new Gentile believer arrives with pork chops. He's too naive to know that there are those that might be stumbled to sin by bringing them to the potluck. Nevertheless, the weaker brothers are commanded to bear with him in love. They are not to think it unwise of him that he is able to enjoy pork chops.
> 
> But, I would hope that an Elder at that meal would take the young man aside and explain to him that his fellow heirs in Christ may be tempted to sin by seeing him eat those pork chops - try as they might that they bear with him in love. The young man would then be impelled by his love of Christ and the love for those that Christ has died for. He'll exclaim: "May it never be. I'll never eat pork chops again in their presence because I love those whom Christ has died for!"
> 
> But, what would be a terrible shame, is if the Elder came to him and said: Don't you know that pork chops are dangerous? It may be OK for some Christians but many have died of disease from eating them. I know you know how to cook them and eat them safely but, I'm just saying, you can't be sure that the next time you eat pork chops may be your last."
> 
> In the first example, the young believer has been rightly impelled by the Elder to act in love toward his weaker brothers. In the second example, he has been wrongly impelled to act _purely_ out of fear with no reference to the reasons that Paul gives in Romans 14.






armourbearer said:


> Rich, I think your scenario fits well within a Rom. 14 context, where a person has scruples over something they believe their conscience is bound to observe. The weaker brother in such a situation is the one whose conscience cannot free itself from obsolete forms of obedience. Christian maturity runs deeper than that, as can be seen by a sound reading of 1st Corinthians. Not being taken in by empty rhetoric, not comparing ministers with ministers, dealing effectively with immorality and offences, remaining morally separate from the world, being sexually pure within marriage, being concerned over how our actions reflect on the reception of the gospel, attending ordinances of worship with consideration of others, using spiritual gifts to the advantage of the common good -- this is all a part of developing a mature Christian outlook. To make an overt stance on one's freedom to drink alcoholic beverages is immature, in my humble opinion, and yet it finds frequent expression on the Puritan board in various forums. The problem, as I perceive it, is not with enjoying a "quiet one," but with broadcasting one's liberty to the point of encouraging a "culture" of drinking.




These are exactly the type of posts I was looking for when I started this thread. However it turned into everyone defending their position (and again, that's partly my fault for using a specific example in the OP).

Rich, I commend you for your humility in thinking about the way that people express themselves when it comes to alcohol. Again, it may seem as if it offends me, but again I say it doesn't. What bothers me is when things are said the wrong way about our liberty to do something just because we may not like the way the person we differed with said what they did. And I'm not talking about the teaching of Gospel motivation, which I thought was good. I'm talking about firing off comments about our liberty when we don't like people firing off comments about their convictions if they differ with us.

God bless.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Barnpreacher said:


> Rich, I commend you for your humility in thinking about the way that people express themselves when it comes to alcohol. Again, it may seem as if it offends me, but again I say it doesn't. What bothers me is when things are said the wrong way about our liberty to do something just because we may not like the way the person we differed with said what they did. And I'm not talking about the teaching of Gospel motivation, which I thought was good. I'm talking about firing off comments about our liberty when we don't like people firing off comments about their convictions if they differ with us.
> 
> God bless.



Don't be too quick to commend me for my humility. I have much to repent for in my attitude. I think my motivations started out fine but my means were questionable. Where I sinned against you and bwsmith in attitude I repent. I already repented to Civbert in a PM.

Believe it or not, I was never bothered by the convictions. We were cross-posting but I was (lamely apparently) trying to get folks to agree to the _basis_ for a discussion on Christian Liberty which I presumed were well agreed to and understood by everybody. I was wrong in that assessment.

Again, what began to concern me, was the ability of some to be able to articulate why the Gospel impels us to do things. I heard something said by the folks at the White Horse Inn the other day that I thought was profound as far as it went. They said, in effect, we know the Law inherently. We're, in fact, without excuse for it's written on our hearts.

What is foreign to us is the Gospel which is why we cannot believe it unless we hear it and someone is sent to us to herald it.

From my vantage point, the reason why most people abuse liberty and sinful addictions run rampant is that too many Churches assume away the power of the Gospel to impel. It's key to Paul's presentation, which is why the first half of nearly every Epistle begins by establishing the Christians in _what Christ has done_ and then he transitions to a section that enjoins them to love and good works _in view of these things_.

Too often, however, we want to do the "love and good works" bit without consideration for "what Christ has done". When that happens, the Christian is stripped of the very thing which empowers him. I kept asking for this acknoweldgement and could not hear it. Thus, it was nigh impossible for us to proceed to this point.

In fact, it is rather pointless to discuss Romans 14 with the Apostle Paul if you completely missed the point he made in the 13 preceding Chapters where he gave the readers the motivation for the things he's talking about at that point. This is why I keep referring the reader to Romans 6 and the like because Paul provides the _basis and motivation_ first and then proceeds to what we do in light of it.

Thus, if you start talking Romans 14 with someone and you get a clue that they're missing something then stop what you're doing and go back to the preceding Chapters and make sure they understood Romans 5-8. If they don't, then they'll never understand Romans 14.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Barnpreacher

SemperFideles said:


> Don't be too quick to commend me for my humility. I have much to repent for in my attitude. I think my motivations started out fine but my means were questionable. Where I sinned against you and bwsmith in attitude I repent. I already repented to Civbert in a PM.
> 
> Believe it or not, I was never bothered by the convictions. We were cross-posting but I was (lamely apparently) trying to get folks to agree to the _basis_ for a discussion on Christian Liberty which I presumed were well agreed to and understood by everybody. I was wrong in that assessment.
> 
> Again, what began to concern me, was the ability of some to be able to articulate why the Gospel impels us to do things. I heard something said by the folks at the White Horse Inn the other day that I thought was profound as far as it went. They said, in effect, we know the Law inherently. We're, in fact, without excuse for it's written on our hearts.
> 
> What is foreign to us is the Gospel which is why we cannot believe it unless we hear it and someone is sent to us to herald it.
> 
> From my vantage point, the reason why most people abuse liberty and sinful addictions run rampant is that too many Churches assume away the power of the Gospel to impel. It's key to Paul's presentation, which is why the first half of nearly every Epistle begins by establishing the Christians in _what Christ has done_ and then he transitions to a section that enjoins them to love and good works _in view of these things_.
> 
> Too often, however, we want to do the "love and good works" bit without consideration for "what Christ has done". When that happens, the Christian is stripped of the very thing which empowers him. I kept asking for this acknoweldgement and could not hear it. Thus, it was nigh impossible for us to proceed to this point.
> 
> In fact, it is rather pointless to discuss Romans 14 with the Apostle Paul if you completely missed the point he made in the 13 preceding Chapters where he gave the readers the motivation for the things he's talking about at that point. This is why I keep referring the reader to Romans 6 and the like because Paul provides the _basis and motivation_ first and then proceeds to what we do in light of it.
> 
> Thus, if you start talking Romans 14 with someone and you get a clue that they're missing something then stop what you're doing and go back to the preceding Chapters and make sure they understood Romans 5-8. If they don't, then they'll never understand Romans 14.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> Rich



Rich, I appreciate that. I understand that discussions can get heated and I as well repent over my attitude to all I wronged. I tell you God used brother. Chris (crhoades) to smite me a good one last night. 

Anyway, I must confess it took me a while to see where you were going throughout the course of these two threads. Partly because I am usually doing 38 other things while trying to read these posts. Once I saw where you were going with Gospel motivation I thought you were spot on. So, we're not in disagreement there.

My main concern was with what armourbearer expressed in his last post. Other than that I probably would have kept my mouth shut over the whole thing. As you can see 170 posts in 2 and a half years shows that my plate is pretty full and I don't have a lot of time to spend here. 

God's blessings to all my brothers and sisters in the PB.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

J.G. Vos, _The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life_

Brian Schwertley, _Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience_


----------



## Civbert

I've only got to points to pick on in your post.

the statement that the brother was no to be thought unwise for eating the pork-chops
the idea that eating pork-chops is dangerous

First, the brother who brought the pork-chops _was _unwise - not for eating them - but for not knowing that they might cause offense. Once informed, he has gained some wisdom. There is nothing inherently wrong with questioning the wisdom of the brother who brought the pork-chops. 

The second example was silly because no one thinks eating pork-chops is dangerous. Your example would have worked better if the brother was actually doing something that was considered dangerous, not merely offensive. 

If eating pork-chops was unsafe, then warning the brother of the danger would have been equally motivated by Christian love. If pork in that area was notorious for making people sick, and was inherently unsafe, then the elder, or any other brother would be compelled by the love of Christ to warn his brother. 

I know you are trying to present examples that demonstrate the difference between admonishing for Christ's sake and out for worldly reasons, but the application does not fit with Romans 14. In the case of Romans 14, both parties are acting out of the desire to honor God, and the issue involved was not a question of anyones' safety. But we are allowed to warn people about things we consider unsafe, and still be motivated by the love of Christ, even in areas of Christian liberty. 




SemperFideles said:


> I completely agree. It is reciprocal, in fact, in Romans 14. There is an injunction to both the weaker and the stronger brother to stop passing judgment. This is not merely an admonition that we not pass judgment with our mouths but that we not judge them in our hearts.
> 
> For instance, imagine the case of an ancient potluck and a new Gentile believer arrives with pork chops. He's too naive to know that there are those that might be stumbled to sin by bringing them to the potluck. Nevertheless, the weaker brothers are commanded to bear with him in love. They are not to think it unwise of him that he is able to enjoy pork chops.
> 
> But, I would hope that an Elder at that meal would take the young man aside and explain to him that his fellow heirs in Christ may be tempted to sin by seeing him eat those pork chops - try as they might that they bear with him in love. The young man would then be impelled by his love of Christ and the love for those that Christ has died for. He'll exclaim: "May it never be. I'll never eat pork chops again in their presence because I love those whom Christ has died for!"
> 
> But, what would be a terrible shame, is if the Elder came to him and said: Don't you know that pork chops are dangerous? It may be OK for some Christians but many have died of disease from eating them. I know you know how to cook them and eat them safely but, I'm just saying, you can't be sure that the next time you eat pork chops may be your last."
> 
> In the first example, the young believer has been rightly impelled by the Elder to act in love toward his weaker brothers. In the second example, he has been wrongly impelled to act _purely_ out of fear with no reference to the reasons that Paul gives in Romans 14.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Except, Anthony, the only reason it is not apt is because you have introduced new elements to the story or have read into elements of the story that are not present. This is an ancient potluck (circa 50 A.D.). To say that nobody thinks that eating pork is dangerous is not only false but it is immaterial. The fictional elder _does_ think it's dangerous and the use of the adverb: "...to act _purely_..." indicates the problem with the motivation. He doesn't, as you suggest he _might_, motivate by love of neighbor much less love of brother. Thus, there is an obvious problem with the motivation.

My point was to demonstrate that the first taking aside was completely in-line with the manner that Paul demonstrated. In fact, my story is probably a _most_ apt example as pork would have been exactly a meat that a Jewish believer would have had a scruple over. Hence, I was trying to keep the story within the context of the admonition of Romans 14. Whether or not other motivations can be demonstrated elsewhere in Scripture, in Romans 14 would you care to exegete a motivation other than the one I have demonstrated except to offer, as I have already, that unsafe behavior certainly can be warned against but it's a matter of how it is approached?

I disagree that ignorance is equivalent to being unwise. The Scriptures do not equate knowledge with wisdom and they do not ascribe folly to youthful naiveté. There is a category for each in the Proverbs - the foolish are those that reject wisdom while the simple are those that have yet attained it. If all one means by unwise is ignorant then I have no interest in splitting hairs but unwise carries many more connotations than ignorance or naiveté does. {Incidentally, please don't start a purposeless argument over the word knowledge.}

Next, assume the young man assumed that the elder was trying to motivate him with a loving attitude about the danger of pork. He takes it on board but then concludes that he is still able to cook pork safely because, like the Japanese blowfish chefs, he comes from generations of pork cookers that have known how to prepare pork properly. He thus continues to bring porkchops to the potluck. Again, part of the "... terrible shame..." of that motivation is that the young man still has no reference to the other believers in the congregation. He's oblivious that he's causing other men to stumble. Thus, he keeps bringing them thinking he's blessing everyone with his pork chops and all the other weaker brothers are long-suffering and bearing with him in love but he's causing offense in complete ignorance. Thus, the motivation out of danger suffers from a profound inadequacy here in that it gives absolutely no reference to "...those that Christ died for..." as the context of Romans 14 repeatedly underlines. In point of fact, the unwise party in my little parable would have been the Elder in the second instance who, though he should have known better, did not properly instruct the young man.

Rev. Winzer agrees that the story is apt as far as an example goes. It frankly struck me that you were trying to introduce any distractive element to avoid interacting with the thrust of this thread as it has proceeded in recent posts. Rather than taking apart the tangential elements of the parable, why not offer some interpretation of Romans 14 and how Paul motivates the believers instead? There's a season for every argument. I have argued against dangerous behavior elsewhere but the important thing here is the context of the passage and the context of the discussion and not what may be more broadly "wise" otherwise we can introduce the whole of Proverbs and completely de-rail this thread.

Finally, I'm a bit surprised you would say that _nobody_ think that eating pork is dangerous. I did a quick Google search on "eating pork is dangerous" and there were many results for that search including this article: http://www.moseshand.com/studies/eatingpork.htm It even uses Scripture to help its argument. I distinctly remember learning all through my formative years in Biology the bacterial dangers of improperly cooked pork. Read the article and it'll even make you consider cutting pork completely out of your diet.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

In this discussion no reference has been made to self-denial. When we (in the affluent West) deny ourselves nothing – under the cloak of liberty – then our life-style may undermine the Gospel. Why any Christian may want to go to a pub is a puzzle to me, especially when I think about time and money. Why be satisfied with so little when Christ offers us so much? I am tee-total but fail to see from Scripture how this view should be imposed on all Christians. I do not consider drinking in moderation to be sinful – and the conscience must not be bound. Mind you, unless American pubs are different from English ones, I know where I'd rather not be. I think I am just about ready for a (non-alcoholic) drink. One final point, why have so many churches departed from serving communion wine? Are we wiser than our LORD?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dieter Schneider said:


> In this discussion no reference has been made to self-denial.



Whether the actual word "self-denial" has been used, the concept has certanly been referenced a number of times.


----------

