Causing your brother to stumble (Romans 14)

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Saiph
Right.

Wisdom.

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

No law explicitly layed out what he should do there.

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Saiph

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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

Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pastorway]

Luke 17

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

Little ones = weaker brothers

 

[Saiph]

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

[Edited on 10/5/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

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

[Edited on 10/5/2005 by fredtgreco]

Fred,
But the issue here is ignorance; the weaker brother is ignorant of the truth. How is ignorance defeated in this case? The opposite of ignorance is knowledge. Is not part and parcel of wisdom to discern when a person is just being defiant to the truth? Would it be wrong to partake in front of this person after one discerns that the conviction itself is error and sinful as well?

Scott,

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,

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

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

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



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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

Scott,

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

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

Paul says absolutely nothing about ignorance. He does not say, "so long as they don't know that you can eat meat, don't eat, but as soon as you inform them (taking away their ignorance), go right ahead." He says "1 Corinthians 8:13 if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." The Greek is literally εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα "to the end of the age" (i.e. until glory).

Your difference is with Paul, not me.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[pastorway]

to Fred

[Edited on 10-5-05 by pastorway]

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

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

 

[Larry Hughes]

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

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

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

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

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

ldh

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes

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

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

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

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

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

ldh

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel


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

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

Care to clarify?

Jeff,

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

Fred,

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

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

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

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

Still not sure.

 

[Steve Owen]

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

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

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

Martin

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