Causing your brother to stumble (Romans 14)

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I wrote a short, simple paper on the issue here:

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

Good write-up.

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I wrote a short, simple paper on the issue here:

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

Good write-up.

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I wrote a short, simple paper on the issue here:

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

Good write-up.

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

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

To potentially throw a wrench into this scenario...

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I would be more patient..............

Under what circumstances?

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

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

James Durham, Concerning Scandal (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990) 21, 25.

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

 

[turmeric]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I would be more patient..............

Under what circumstances?

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

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

 

[turmeric]

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

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Gabe,

I think this comes down to this section from Durham:

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

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

All things should be done primarily for edification.

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Thank you, Jeff.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Scott,

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Assume that the parents are Arminian, fundamentalists, and the adult child is Reformed.

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Good thoughts, Joshua.

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Good thoughts, Joshua.

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

Gabriel,

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Good thoughts, Joshua.

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

Gabriel,

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

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

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

Ugh.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Scott,

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Scott,

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

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

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

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

Where exactly do we disagree?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jeff,
You previously wrote:

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The ESV notes on vs. 21:

14:21 Some manuscripts add or be hindered or be weakened

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

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

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

Jeff,
It seems we agree.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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

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

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

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

Scott,

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

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