Flaunting Christian Liberty

[Barnpreacher]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

"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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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.