Causing your brother to stumble (Romans 14)

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

G4624
σκανδαλιÌζω
skandalizō
skan-dal-id'-zo
To "œscandalize"; from G4625; to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure): - (make to) offend.

 

[Saiph]

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

 

[Saiph]

total abstinence is easier than perfect moderation for some.

When in doubt if an action be just, abstain.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Saiph
total abstinence is easier than perfect moderation for some.

When in doubt if an action be just, abstain.

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

As Martin Luther would say ...

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

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

13. Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend. With the view of reproving more severely their disdainful liberty, he declares, that we ought not merely to refrain from a single banquet rather than injure a brother, but ought to give up the eating of meats during our whole life. Nor does he merely prescribe what ought to be done, but declares that he would himself act in this way. The expression, it is true, is hyperbolical, as it is scarcely possible that one should refrain from eating flesh during his whole life, if he remain in common life;7 but his meaning is, that he would rather make no use of his liberty in any instance, than be an occasion of offense to the weak. For participation is in no case lawful, unless it be regulated by the rule of love. Would that this were duly pondered by those who make everything subservient to their own advantage, so that they cannot endure to give up so much as a hair's-breadth of their own right for the sake of their brethren; and that they would attend not merely to what Paul teaches, but also to what he marks out by his own example! How greatly superior he is to us! When he, then, makes no hesitation in subjecting himself thus far to his brethren, which of us would not submit to the same condition?

But, however difficult it is to act up to this doctrine, so far as the meaning is concerned, his easy, were it not that some have corrupted it by foolish glosses, and others by wicked calumnies. Both classes err as to the meaning of the word offend. For they understand the word offend to mean, incurring the hatred or displeasure of men, or what is nearly the same thing, doing what displeases them, or is not altogether agreeable to them. But it appears very manifestly from the context, that it means simply to hinder a brother by bad example (as an obstacle thrown in his way) from the right course, or to give him occasion of falling. Paul, therefore, is not here treating of the retaining of the favor of men, but of the assisting of the weak, so as to prevent their falling, and prudently directing them, that they may not turn aside from the right path. But (as I have said) the former class are foolish, while the latter are also wicked and impudent. (emphasis added)

Matthew Henry makes much the same point:

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

 

[pastorway]

I ditto all that Fred has posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scott,

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

13. Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend. With the view of reproving more severely their disdainful liberty, he declares, that we ought not merely to refrain from a single banquet rather than injure a brother, but ought to give up the eating of meats during our whole life. Nor does he merely prescribe what ought to be done, but declares that he would himself act in this way. The expression, it is true, is hyperbolical, as it is scarcely possible that one should refrain from eating flesh during his whole life, if he remain in common life;7 but his meaning is, that he would rather make no use of his liberty in any instance, than be an occasion of offense to the weak. For participation is in no case lawful, unless it be regulated by the rule of love. Would that this were duly pondered by those who make everything subservient to their own advantage, so that they cannot endure to give up so much as a hair's-breadth of their own right for the sake of their brethren; and that they would attend not merely to what Paul teaches, but also to what he marks out by his own example! How greatly superior he is to us! When he, then, makes no hesitation in subjecting himself thus far to his brethren, which of us would not submit to the same condition?

But, however difficult it is to act up to this doctrine, so far as the meaning is concerned, his easy, were it not that some have corrupted it by foolish glosses, and others by wicked calumnies. Both classes err as to the meaning of the word offend. For they understand the word offend to mean, incurring the hatred or displeasure of men, or what is nearly the same thing, doing what displeases them, or is not altogether agreeable to them. But it appears very manifestly from the context, that it means simply to hinder a brother by bad example (as an obstacle thrown in his way) from the right course, or to give him occasion of falling. Paul, therefore, is not here treating of the retaining of the favor of men, but of the assisting of the weak, so as to prevent their falling, and prudently directing them, that they may not turn aside from the right path. But (as I have said) the former class are foolish, while the latter are also wicked and impudent. (emphasis added)

Matthew Henry makes much the same point:

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

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

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

 

[pastorway]

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

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

Phillip

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by pastorway
I ditto all that Fred has posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

Phillip

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pastorway]

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

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

In this specific case, abstain.

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

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

Scott,

The never is in a clear context:

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

Phillip

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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

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

Phillip

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

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

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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

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

Phillip

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

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

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

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

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

Care to clarify?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel


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

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

Care to clarify?

Jeff,

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by pastorway

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

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

In this specific case, abstain.

Phillip

Agreed.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

Scott,

The never is in a clear context:

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

Scott,

The never is in a clear context:

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

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

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

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

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

I was describing #3.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

Scott,

The never is in a clear context:

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

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

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

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

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

I was describing #3.

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

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

 

[Saiph]

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

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

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

 

[Saiph]

Right.

Wisdom.

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

No law explicitly layed out what he should do there.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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

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

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

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

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.