Flaunting Christian Liberty

[non dignus]

Good post, Chris!

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

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

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

The weaker brother needs to grow strong and grow up.

 

[bwsmith]

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

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

 

[crhoades]

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

 

[Barnpreacher]

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

See Poole:

Ro 14:1
Chapter Summary
Ro 16:1-6 Directions to treat a weak brother kindly, and not to despise or censure one another in matters of indifference. Ro 16:6-9 Christ's right to our best services, whether we live or die. Ro 16:10-12 We must all be answerable for our respective conduct at his judgment-seat. Ro 16:13-23 We must be careful not to use our Christian liberty to the hurt or offence of tender consciences.
Ver. 1. In this chapter and part of the next, the apostle treats of some lesser matters of religion, about which there were great contentions in the church of Rome. Some of the Jews, though they embraced the gospel, did stiffly adhere still to the Mosaical ceremonies; and though a difference in meats and days should be conscientiously observed, yet they were ready to censure those that were contrary-minded, as profane persons, and contemners of the law of God. On the other side, the believing Gentiles, being better instructed about their Christiall liberty, when they saw the Jews insisting upon such things as these, that had never any real goodness in them, and were now abrogated by Christ, they were ready to despise them as ignorant and superstitious, and to deny communion with them. The apostle therefore doth seasonably endeavour to arbitrate this matter, and make peace amongst them.
Him that is weak in the faith; that is, wavering and unsettled in some lesser points of faith, particularly in the doctrine of Christian liberty, and freedom from the ceremonial law: he means, the scrupulous and erroneous Judaizer, though yet, in proportion, it may be applied to other scrupulous and doubting Christians.
Receive ye; or, receive him to you, take him into your bosoms, admit him to communion with you, bear with his weakness, better instruct him with the spirit of meekness: see Ro 15:1; Php 3:15-16. Bucer received all, though differing from him in some opinions, in whom he found, aliquid Christi, any thing of Christ.
But not to doubtful disputations: q. d. Do not entertain him with disputes and vain janglings, which will not edify, but perplex and prejudice him. Do not make him question sick, as it is in 1Ti 6:4. This passage may be expounded by Tit 3:9. The marginal reading would make this to be the sense, that a scrupulous Christian should be received unto communion; yet not so as to encourage him to judge and condemn the thoughts of those that differ from him.

Ro 14:2
Ver. 2. One believeth that he may eat all things; i.e. one that is informed aright of his Christian liberty, is fully persuaded, and that upon good grounds, that he may eat any thing that is wholesome, though forbidden by the ceremonial law; that there is now no difference of clean and unclean meats: see Mt 15:11; Ac 10:12-15.
Another, who is weak, eateth herbs; i.e. he that (as before) is weak in faith, and not so well informed, such a one, for fear of offending God by eating any thing that is forbidden, will rather content himself with the meanest diet. The meaning is not, as if any, in those times, thought it lawful only to eat herbs, and so abstained altogether from other meats; but they would rather satisfy themselves with herbs, and other fruits of the earth, in which the law of Moses made no difference, than eat meats that were forbidden, or not cleansed from blood, or offered to idols, &c.: see Da 1:8.

Ro 14:3
Ver. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; i. e. Let not him that makes use of his liberty in eating any thing indifferently, vilify or contemn him that is of a contrary mind, as one that is ignorant and over scrupulous; and let not him that forbears such meats as were of old forbidden, judge and condemn him that is contrary-minded, as profane and over-venturous; notwithstanding such little difference in opinion, let one Christian love and communicate with another.
For God hath received him: it is disputed, whether this be meant of the weak or strong Christian; the word judge, which immediately goes before and follows after, carries it rather for the latter. But some think it is meant of both. He that eateth, and he that eateth not, is received by God into his church and family, and indiffercnlly accepted with him, uponanother and a higher account.

Ro 14:4
Ver. 4. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth: a sharp reprehension of the forementioned evil. You have the like: Jas 4:12. q. d. This phrase is repugnant not only to the law of God, but to the very law of nature, which tells us, that one man must not condemn the servant of another, over whom he hath no right or power; much less may any man condemn him that is the Lord's servant. Every Christian hath Christ alone for his own or his proper Master; and it is his judgment by which he must abide; it is to him that he standeth or falleth, that he doth well or ill.
Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand: q. d. If (as thou thinkest) he be fallen or falling, he shall be upheld and supported; for God is able, &c. But how doth this follow, because God can make him stand, therefore he shall be holden up?
Answer. It is a rule in divinity, that in all God's promises, his power is joined with his will; so that where the latter is once revealed, there is no question of the former: now of the word of God in this matter, there was no doubt; for he had said, Ro 14:3, that God had received him. You had the like way of arguing, Ro 11:23, where the apostle proves the calling of the Jews by an argument taken from the power of God, because he is able to graft them in again: see Ro 4:21; Heb 10:23.

Ro 14:5
Ver. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike: there were differences in the church of Rome about the observation of days, as well as the choice of meats; and in this he endeavours an accommodation as well as in the other. The converted Jew was of opinion, that the festival days appointed in Moses' law, were holier than other days, and that they should still be observed: see Ga 4:10; Col 2:16. On the other side, the believing Gentile was of opinion, that the difference in days under the Old Testament was now ceased, and he (the text says) esteemed or approved of all days. The word alike is not in the original, but it is aptly supplied by our translators.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; i.e. Let every man be satisfied as to the grounds of his practice; let him act by his own and not another man's, judgment and conscience; let him be so fully assured in his own mind of the lawfulness of what he doth, as to find no doubting or scrupulous hesitations in the doing of it; let him be able to say as the apostle himself doth, Ro 14:14. The reason of this counsel you have, ">Ro 14:23. He that doth what he thinks is a sin, is an offender against God, whether it be a sin or no. And yet a man may sin in that wherein he is fully persuaded he sinneth not. A full persuasion must be had, but it is not sufficient to make an action good or lawful.

Ro 14:6
Ver. 6. In this verse you have a reason why Christians should not censure one another, upon an account of different opinions and practices, because they have all the same end and scope, which is the pleasing and glorifying of God. It is with regard to him that they eat, or eat not; that they observe those festival days, or observe them not; and so far they are on both sides to be commended; for that indeed should be our end, in all our actions, to glorify and please the Lord: see 1Co 10:31; Col 3:17.
He giveth God thanks; i.e. he is thankful unto God for the bountiful and free use of his creatures. Some would ground that laudable practice of giving thanks at meals upon this text, but it hath a clearer warrant from Mt 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Ac 27:35.
He eateth not, and giveth God thanks; because he hath meat enough besides, which he is not forbidden, 1Co 10:28.

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

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

See Poole:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[crhoades]

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

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

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

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

Herein lies Christian Liberty.

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

 

[bwsmith]

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

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

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

Herein lies Christian Liberty.

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

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

 

[bwsmith]

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

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

 

[crhoades]

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

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

And secondly you missed my point. Alcohol is not dangerous. It is the person who misuses and their heart that is dangerous. Alcohol is never dangerous.

 

[Barnpreacher]

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

brother. Chris,

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

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

See Poole:

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

God Bless.

 

[Barnpreacher]

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

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

 

[crhoades]

brother. Chris,

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

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

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

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

 

[non dignus]

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

 

[Barnpreacher]

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

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

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

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

 

[crhoades]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Barnpreacher]

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

First you wrote above:

See Poole:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer determines what you think union with Christ is.

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

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

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

Romans 14 (I've broken this down between passages that speak of what Christ has done (motivation) and our resultant action toward our brothers (result)

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

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

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

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

 

[kvanlaan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BobVigneault]

Kevin, you said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

I think that says volumes.

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

Thanks!

 

[sotzo]

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings!

Rich

 

[bwsmith]

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

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

 

[Barnpreacher]

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

 

[Civbert]

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

Chris,

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

 

[sotzo]

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

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

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

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

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

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

I think that we can agree on.

 

[Civbert]

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

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

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

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

 

[kvanlaan]

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

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

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

I can't sit here and say that I have seen the bottom of the pit - I have not. God has thus far preserved me from time in an emotional abyss. But we have sat for almost ten interminable years waiting for our daughter and missed a score of weddings and funerals because of it. You want a recipe for depression? Go to the rustiest, most polluted part of the American rustbelt and chain yourself to it for a decade. Then add people who tell you that you are stupid to try to help an orphan, an ugly one at that, add government folks that tell you it will never happen if they can help it and that it will cost you too much money, etc. etc. etc. and play that in a loop for ten years. Throw in the fact that a bag (yep, it comes in bags) of white lightning cost only $.15 each and the bottle starts to look like a good friend.

Look up.

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

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

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