Flaunting Christian Liberty

[Civbert]

... 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.

Yes, yes. But neither are guns, matches, motorcycles, knives, fire, dynamite, etc. It's the person who misuses them that a dangerous.

Are we not to warn people of dangers involved if we see them? Do we need to have a biblical reference to tell people that it is unwise to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Would not the argument necessarrily involve wordly information? Would not a Christian be neglecting his duty to his brothers if he did not warn them of the dangerous he percieves in their actions, right or wrong?

And please don't miss my question to you:

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?

Although addressed to Chris Rhoades, anyone is welcome to answer.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, yes. But neither are guns, matches, motorcycles, knives, fire, dynamite, etc. It's the person who misuses them that a dangerous.

Are we not to warn people of dangers involved if we see them? Do we need to have a biblical reference to tell people that it is unwise to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Would not the argument necessarrily involve wordly information? Would not a Christian be neglecting his duty to his brothers if he did not warn them of the dangerous he percieves in their actions, right or wrong?

I answered that question above with respect to children and maturity.

Yes, we warn them - but the principle motivation is not the danger. The principle motivation is doxology.

And please don't miss my question to you:

Although addressed to Chris Rhoades, anyone is welcome to answer.

Yes, I said this too. Some have been unable to read that I strongly acknowledged this but, yet again, this became about whether or not a Gospel motivation, which then informed a physical warning, could be articulated.

Here's my post again to calgal:

Yes, you're correct, Gail that liberty is not for license sake. Paul anticipates that attitude in Romans 6. We are to understand that we are freed from the Law's condemnation and our union with Christ in His death and resurrection is supposed to impel us to righteousness. We are slaves to Christ and to righteousness.

Now, that said, are all those in Christ mature enough to exercise this liberty without guidance? No, I've never argued that. I even acknowledged the point that, as parents guide their children, so we are to help others as they mature in prudence.

But it's all in how you discipline. I remember this one lady who was yelling at her 3 year old son about walking away from her. She exclaimed: "Don't ever do that again. Somebody could take you away forever and then Mommy would be really sad." I was horrified. The kid was oblivious. As a motivation for him to not run away it was way over the head of a three year old.

When I discipline my own children, I don't tell them not to do a thing because it is bad and I don't want them to be bad. I repeatedly give them the motivation that "... this pleases God...."

We all understand how discipline works and how maturity works. If my 5 year old son came up to me and asked me, is it OK to cross the street, I would not have a problem giving him a "law" at his age. If, when he is 22 years old, he is still asking me if it's OK to cross the street then I have failed miserably as a father to train self-discipline into the man.

Wisdom begins at times looking like Law but the goal is a self-disciplined exercise in liberty. The impelling nature of that self-discipline in a mature Christian MUST be a heart that desires to please God. Outwardly, two men can appear to be the same in the way they behave but inwardly if a man's motivation is not bent to Christ then it's all a white-washed sepulchre.

The other day we were studying Malachi and one of the woman asked: "What do you tell people that don't go to Church because they don't want to tithe?"

I told her that my first concern was that such people were, first and foremost, focusing on the tithe as a law. Such men reveal the Gospel has not penetrated their hearts at all that they view the tithe in the manner of pure obligation.

I told her to tell them: "I'm more worried about the fact that you're not hearing the Gospel. You need to be in Church to hear that because your response indicates that you don't believe the Gospel."

Thus, when we live in light of heart's transformed, we ought to be on a tireless quest to pursue the things that please God. It ought to flow naturally from us. Some, in that pursuit of truth, come to differing conclusions. Some are "weaker" in their conclusions and being scrupulous in a manner that exceeds what God is fully calling them to. Those that have been convinced otherwise ought to appreciate, in the weaker brother, that the convictions are held for Christ's sake and not judge them therein. Those that are weaker ought to, likewise, judge that the stronger brother has come to a differing conviction but, still, for Christ's sake.

BUT, and here is the but that needs to be pointed out, not all convictions are for Christ's sake and we need to evaluate the way in which the injunction is being argued. Maybe it is a weaker brother and, in spite of the Word's injunction, he is judging his brother when he ought not. He needs to be reminded that its inappropriate.

Worse yet, though, are those cases where the motivation for a thing is never couched for Christ's sake. That should cause concern and a bit of digging to determine what is going on. It may be that such a person may not understand the Gospel well at all or may, in fact, not be a brother at all.

This is why how we exercise our liberty and talk about our liberty is a good guage on how we understand the Gospel.

 

[Civbert]

I answered that question above with respect to children and maturity.

Yes, we warn them - but the principle motivation is not the danger. The principle motivation is doxology.

These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can not be. If I am convinced there is danger, my motivation to "love my neighbor" dictates that I warn my brother. You show your love for God by obedience to his Law. And the summary of the Law concerning our brothers and neighbors is to love them as we love ourselves. Nor do I condemn my brother for warning me of any danger they are convinced of. I assume the warning is motivated by their love towards God.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But now the motivation is not the danger, Anthony, but love of neighbor. I don't disagree. The point is that one does not have the ability, inherently, to love one's neighbor unless they be born again from above. Further, love of neighbor can only be informed and fully impelled by the fact that they are created in the image of the God who loved us before with loved Him. The reason all sorts of social injustice occurs in Amos begins with idolatry. All the sins then follow (Romans 1). Thus, we aim at the heart first and work on the motivation to have the actions naturally follow.

 

[Civbert]

I
Here's my post again to calgal:

...BUT, and here is the but that needs to be pointed out, not all convictions are for Christ's sake and we need to evaluate the way in which the injunction is being argued. Maybe it is a weaker brother and, in spite of the Word's injunction, he is judging his brother when he ought not. He needs to be reminded that its inappropriate.

Worse yet, though, are those cases where the motivation for a thing is never couched for Christ's sake. That should cause concern and a bit of digging to determine what is going on. It may be that such a person may not understand the Gospel well at all or may, in fact, not be a brother at all.

This is why how we exercise our liberty and talk about our liberty is a good gage on how we understand the Gospel.

I don't think we can truly "evaluate the way in which the injunction is being argued" beyond what is actually being said. Going beyond that is a violation of Paul's admonition not to harshly judge our brothers in Rom 14. I don't think we are called to "evaluate" the heart of the person. It would not matter if the person says, "be careful of the danger", or "be careful of the danger for Christ's sake", because a false brother will give the warning as readily in terms of "Christ's sake" as a true brother will.

How we talk about liberty only extends to the point of asking if someone is being legalistic by adding to the law, or if someone is trying to be obedient to the intent of the law. If we understand the Gospel, we will not condemn our brothers for holding convictions they are convinced in their own minds about. We can disagree with them, but we may not judge their motives as false in areas of liberty.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I said it was a point of concern. Elders would be expected to work with people on their apprehension of such things. I agree that we should not be roughshod in the Church over such things. If you read it again, you'll notice there is a progression, beginning with the assumption that the brother is weak. The portion you quoted might proceed along the lines of Matthew 18 in the worst cases but it's never done capriciously. Brevity, and the purpose of this thread, didn't permit me to spell it out. The example of the woman in my Church was used not in the sense that I would judge her but in the sense that I would care to ensure that she understands the Gospel if she's not able to express it.

This place is imperfect as I've already noted and not well suited for such things but I still have certain responsibilities here. I do not relish them.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

“Christian liberty is an internal thing; it belongs to the mind and conscience, and has a direct reference to God. The use of Christian liberty is an external thing; it belongs to conduct, and has reference to man. No consideration should prevail on us for a moment to give up our liberty; but many a consideration should induce us to forego the practical assertion or display of our liberty.”

--John Brown. 2001. Galatians. The Banner of Truth Trust; Carlisle, PA; p. 286.

 

[calgal]

I said it was a point of concern. Elders would be expected to work with people on their apprehension of such things. I agree that we should not be roughshod in the Church over such things. If you read it again, you'll notice there is a progression, beginning with the assumption that the brother is weak. The portion you quoted might proceed along the lines of Matthew 18 in the worst cases but it's never done capriciously. Brevity, and the purpose of this thread, didn't permit me to spell it out. The example of the woman in my Church was used not in the sense that I would judge her but in the sense that I would care to ensure that she understands the Gospel if she's not able to express it.

This place is imperfect as I've already noted and not well suited for such things but I still have certain responsibilities here. I do not relish them.

Thanks Rich! I have seen the "fundie fencing" (for lack of a better word) any number of activities (dancing, drinking and attire being the most popular areas for regulation) and the inability to adhere to the man made regulations (secret drinking and dancing). In my opinion, the fencing was a greater problem than the "worldly" behaviors the holiness folks sought to avoid. Liberty mistaken for license is a problem as well but it seems the "nanny" mindset used by a lot of Evangelicals lead to situations like the following:

I attended a Wesleyan church when I was younger. The college and careers group I was part of decided to have a New Years Eve party. Now part of the requirements for membership in this church were Baptism by immersion and agreeing to abide by the Holiness rules. That meant no alcohol, premarital s*x or dancing. This became a problem for the party organizers. See they had hired a DJ (but there was "no dancing") and when they alluded to dancing they made it very obvious that the party would not exactly be a hymn sing in the fellowship hall. I was a very new Christian and this bothered me a lot. The written rules were quite obvious and there was no way to get around "members of Finney Wesleyan Church will NOT dance." Hypocritical? You bet it was! I prefer to be treated as an adult than have decisions made for me. In other words holiness is annoying at best and unbiblical at worst.

 

[MW]

“Christian liberty is an internal thing; it belongs to the mind and conscience, and has a direct reference to God. The use of Christian liberty is an external thing; it belongs to conduct, and has reference to man. No consideration should prevail on us for a moment to give up our liberty; but many a consideration should induce us to forego the practical assertion or display of our liberty.”

--John Brown. 2001. Galatians. The Banner of Truth Trust; Carlisle, PA; p. 286.

Emphasis added. Asserting our liberty on matters which should be kept private is a betrayal of true freedom, because we only reveal that we are bound to justify our actions to others or impose them upon others.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I completely agree. It is reciprocal, in fact, in Romans 14. There is an injunction to both the weaker and the stronger brother to stop passing judgment. This is not merely an admonition that we not pass judgment with our mouths but that we not judge them in our hearts.

For instance, imagine the case of an ancient potluck and a new Gentile believer arrives with pork chops. He's too naive to know that there are those that might be stumbled to sin by bringing them to the potluck. Nevertheless, the weaker brothers are commanded to bear with him in love. They are not to think it unwise of him that he is able to enjoy pork chops.

But, I would hope that an Elder at that meal would take the young man aside and explain to him that his fellow heirs in Christ may be tempted to sin by seeing him eat those pork chops - try as they might that they bear with him in love. The young man would then be impelled by his love of Christ and the love for those that Christ has died for. He'll exclaim: "May it never be. I'll never eat pork chops again in their presence because I love those whom Christ has died for!"

But, what would be a terrible shame, is if the Elder came to him and said: Don't you know that pork chops are dangerous? It may be OK for some Christians but many have died of disease from eating them. I know you know how to cook them and eat them safely but, I'm just saying, you can't be sure that the next time you eat pork chops may be your last."

In the first example, the young believer has been rightly impelled by the Elder to act in love toward his weaker brothers. In the second example, he has been wrongly impelled to act purely out of fear with no reference to the reasons that Paul gives in Romans 14.

 

[MW]

Rich, I think your scenario fits well within a Rom. 14 context, where a person has scruples over something they believe their conscience is bound to observe. The weaker brother in such a situation is the one whose conscience cannot free itself from obsolete forms of obedience. Christian maturity runs deeper than that, as can be seen by a sound reading of 1st Corinthians. Not being taken in by empty rhetoric, not comparing ministers with ministers, dealing effectively with immorality and offences, remaining morally separate from the world, being sexually pure within marriage, being concerned over how our actions reflect on the reception of the gospel, attending ordinances of worship with consideration of others, using spiritual gifts to the advantage of the common good -- this is all a part of developing a mature Christian outlook. To make an overt stance on one's freedom to drink alcoholic beverages is immature, in my humble opinion, and yet it finds frequent expression on the Puritan board in various forums. The problem, as I perceive it, is not with enjoying a "quiet one," but with broadcasting one's liberty to the point of encouraging a "culture" of drinking.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Something worthy of consideration certainly. I was just thinking about the same thing as I typed the above.

I don't know if I agree that all expressions encourage the culture but, even if they don't, I think it might be worth hiding the Puritan Pub from those who don't wish to see those threads. In fact, I'm going to make that so.

This discussion has been narrowly focused to this point and distracted from being tightly focused on the subject because of my concerns.

I do wish, however, that we had begun this discussion with the foundation for Christian liberty properly laid and then proceeded from there because it's a real shame that this conversation is occuring so late in the thread.

Some might see in this that it's all the same thing but it is not. The foundation I speak of is the below. Unfortunately, I could not seem to get some to acknowledge this paragraph and so I got stuck trying to get it affirmed. Without it, the rest of the discussions are in vain:

Chapter XX
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

II. The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;1 and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;2 from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;3 as also, in their free access to God,4 and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.5 All which were common also to believers under the law.6 But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;7 and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,8 and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.9

1 TIT 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 1TH 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. GAL 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

2 GAL 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father. COL 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. ACT 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. ROM 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

3 ROM 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. PSA 119:71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. 1CO 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. ROM 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

4 ROM 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

5 ROM 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 1JO 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

6 GAL 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

7 GAL 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. ACT 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

8 HEB 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

9 JOH 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) 2CO 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Something worthy of consideration certainly. I was just thinking about the same thing as I typed the above.

I don't know if I agree that all expressions encourage the culture but, even if they don't, I think it might be worth hiding the Puritan Pub from those who don't wish to see those threads. In fact, I'm going to make that so.

This discussion has been narrowly focused to this point and distracted from being tightly focused on the subject because of my concerns.

I do wish, however, that we had begun this discussion with the foundation for Christian liberty properly laid and then proceeded from there because it's a real shame that this conversation is occuring so late in the thread.

Some might see in this that it's all the same thing but it is not. The foundation I speak of is the below. Unfortunately, I could not seem to get some to acknowledge this paragraph and so I got stuck trying to get it affirmed. Without it, the rest of the discussions are in vain:

brother. Rich,

This is exactly why I started this thread. brother. Matthew expressed what I tried to say in the OP. My regret is that I used a specific example and it was wrong of me for singling one person out (even though I didn't do it to harm him).

I completely agree. It is reciprocal, in fact, in Romans 14. There is an injunction to both the weaker and the stronger brother to stop passing judgment. This is not merely an admonition that we not pass judgment with our mouths but that we not judge them in our hearts.

For instance, imagine the case of an ancient potluck and a new Gentile believer arrives with pork chops. He's too naive to know that there are those that might be stumbled to sin by bringing them to the potluck. Nevertheless, the weaker brothers are commanded to bear with him in love. They are not to think it unwise of him that he is able to enjoy pork chops.

But, I would hope that an Elder at that meal would take the young man aside and explain to him that his fellow heirs in Christ may be tempted to sin by seeing him eat those pork chops - try as they might that they bear with him in love. The young man would then be impelled by his love of Christ and the love for those that Christ has died for. He'll exclaim: "May it never be. I'll never eat pork chops again in their presence because I love those whom Christ has died for!"

But, what would be a terrible shame, is if the Elder came to him and said: Don't you know that pork chops are dangerous? It may be OK for some Christians but many have died of disease from eating them. I know you know how to cook them and eat them safely but, I'm just saying, you can't be sure that the next time you eat pork chops may be your last."

In the first example, the young believer has been rightly impelled by the Elder to act in love toward his weaker brothers. In the second example, he has been wrongly impelled to act purely out of fear with no reference to the reasons that Paul gives in Romans 14.

Rich, I think your scenario fits well within a Rom. 14 context, where a person has scruples over something they believe their conscience is bound to observe. The weaker brother in such a situation is the one whose conscience cannot free itself from obsolete forms of obedience. Christian maturity runs deeper than that, as can be seen by a sound reading of 1st Corinthians. Not being taken in by empty rhetoric, not comparing ministers with ministers, dealing effectively with immorality and offences, remaining morally separate from the world, being sexually pure within marriage, being concerned over how our actions reflect on the reception of the gospel, attending ordinances of worship with consideration of others, using spiritual gifts to the advantage of the common good -- this is all a part of developing a mature Christian outlook. To make an overt stance on one's freedom to drink alcoholic beverages is immature, in my humble opinion, and yet it finds frequent expression on the Puritan board in various forums. The problem, as I perceive it, is not with enjoying a "quiet one," but with broadcasting one's liberty to the point of encouraging a "culture" of drinking.

These are exactly the type of posts I was looking for when I started this thread. However it turned into everyone defending their position (and again, that's partly my fault for using a specific example in the OP).

Rich, I commend you for your humility in thinking about the way that people express themselves when it comes to alcohol. Again, it may seem as if it offends me, but again I say it doesn't. What bothers me is when things are said the wrong way about our liberty to do something just because we may not like the way the person we differed with said what they did. And I'm not talking about the teaching of Gospel motivation, which I thought was good. I'm talking about firing off comments about our liberty when we don't like people firing off comments about their convictions if they differ with us.

God bless.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I commend you for your humility in thinking about the way that people express themselves when it comes to alcohol. Again, it may seem as if it offends me, but again I say it doesn't. What bothers me is when things are said the wrong way about our liberty to do something just because we may not like the way the person we differed with said what they did. And I'm not talking about the teaching of Gospel motivation, which I thought was good. I'm talking about firing off comments about our liberty when we don't like people firing off comments about their convictions if they differ with us.

God bless.

Don't be too quick to commend me for my humility. I have much to repent for in my attitude. I think my motivations started out fine but my means were questionable. Where I sinned against you and bwsmith in attitude I repent. I already repented to Civbert in a PM.

Believe it or not, I was never bothered by the convictions. We were cross-posting but I was (lamely apparently) trying to get folks to agree to the basis for a discussion on Christian Liberty which I presumed were well agreed to and understood by everybody. I was wrong in that assessment.

Again, what began to concern me, was the ability of some to be able to articulate why the Gospel impels us to do things. I heard something said by the folks at the White Horse Inn the other day that I thought was profound as far as it went. They said, in effect, we know the Law inherently. We're, in fact, without excuse for it's written on our hearts.

What is foreign to us is the Gospel which is why we cannot believe it unless we hear it and someone is sent to us to herald it.

From my vantage point, the reason why most people abuse liberty and sinful addictions run rampant is that too many Churches assume away the power of the Gospel to impel. It's key to Paul's presentation, which is why the first half of nearly every Epistle begins by establishing the Christians in what Christ has done and then he transitions to a section that enjoins them to love and good works in view of these things.

Too often, however, we want to do the "love and good works" bit without consideration for "what Christ has done". When that happens, the Christian is stripped of the very thing which empowers him. I kept asking for this acknoweldgement and could not hear it. Thus, it was nigh impossible for us to proceed to this point.

In fact, it is rather pointless to discuss Romans 14 with the Apostle Paul if you completely missed the point he made in the 13 preceding Chapters where he gave the readers the motivation for the things he's talking about at that point. This is why I keep referring the reader to Romans 6 and the like because Paul provides the basis and motivation first and then proceeds to what we do in light of it.

Thus, if you start talking Romans 14 with someone and you get a clue that they're missing something then stop what you're doing and go back to the preceding Chapters and make sure they understood Romans 5-8. If they don't, then they'll never understand Romans 14.

Blessings!

Rich

 

[Barnpreacher]

Don't be too quick to commend me for my humility. I have much to repent for in my attitude. I think my motivations started out fine but my means were questionable. Where I sinned against you and bwsmith in attitude I repent. I already repented to Civbert in a PM.

Believe it or not, I was never bothered by the convictions. We were cross-posting but I was (lamely apparently) trying to get folks to agree to the basis for a discussion on Christian Liberty which I presumed were well agreed to and understood by everybody. I was wrong in that assessment.

Again, what began to concern me, was the ability of some to be able to articulate why the Gospel impels us to do things. I heard something said by the folks at the White Horse Inn the other day that I thought was profound as far as it went. They said, in effect, we know the Law inherently. We're, in fact, without excuse for it's written on our hearts.

What is foreign to us is the Gospel which is why we cannot believe it unless we hear it and someone is sent to us to herald it.

From my vantage point, the reason why most people abuse liberty and sinful addictions run rampant is that too many Churches assume away the power of the Gospel to impel. It's key to Paul's presentation, which is why the first half of nearly every Epistle begins by establishing the Christians in what Christ has done and then he transitions to a section that enjoins them to love and good works in view of these things.

Too often, however, we want to do the "love and good works" bit without consideration for "what Christ has done". When that happens, the Christian is stripped of the very thing which empowers him. I kept asking for this acknoweldgement and could not hear it. Thus, it was nigh impossible for us to proceed to this point.

In fact, it is rather pointless to discuss Romans 14 with the Apostle Paul if you completely missed the point he made in the 13 preceding Chapters where he gave the readers the motivation for the things he's talking about at that point. This is why I keep referring the reader to Romans 6 and the like because Paul provides the basis and motivation first and then proceeds to what we do in light of it.

Thus, if you start talking Romans 14 with someone and you get a clue that they're missing something then stop what you're doing and go back to the preceding Chapters and make sure they understood Romans 5-8. If they don't, then they'll never understand Romans 14.

Blessings!

Rich

Rich, I appreciate that. I understand that discussions can get heated and I as well repent over my attitude to all I wronged. I tell you God used brother. Chris (crhoades) to smite me a good one last night.

Anyway, I must confess it took me a while to see where you were going throughout the course of these two threads. Partly because I am usually doing 38 other things while trying to read these posts. Once I saw where you were going with Gospel motivation I thought you were spot on. So, we're not in disagreement there.

My main concern was with what armourbearer expressed in his last post. Other than that I probably would have kept my mouth shut over the whole thing. As you can see 170 posts in 2 and a half years shows that my plate is pretty full and I don't have a lot of time to spend here.

God's blessings to all my brothers and sisters in the PB.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

J.G. Vos, The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life

Brian Schwertley, Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

 

[Civbert]

I've only got to points to pick on in your post.

1. the statement that the brother was no to be thought unwise for eating the pork-chops
2. the idea that eating pork-chops is dangerous

First, the brother who brought the pork-chops was unwise - not for eating them - but for not knowing that they might cause offense. Once informed, he has gained some wisdom. There is nothing inherently wrong with questioning the wisdom of the brother who brought the pork-chops.

The second example was silly because no one thinks eating pork-chops is dangerous. Your example would have worked better if the brother was actually doing something that was considered dangerous, not merely offensive.

If eating pork-chops was unsafe, then warning the brother of the danger would have been equally motivated by Christian love. If pork in that area was notorious for making people sick, and was inherently unsafe, then the elder, or any other brother would be compelled by the love of Christ to warn his brother.

I know you are trying to present examples that demonstrate the difference between admonishing for Christ's sake and out for worldly reasons, but the application does not fit with Romans 14. In the case of Romans 14, both parties are acting out of the desire to honor God, and the issue involved was not a question of anyones' safety. But we are allowed to warn people about things we consider unsafe, and still be motivated by the love of Christ, even in areas of Christian liberty.

I completely agree. It is reciprocal, in fact, in Romans 14. There is an injunction to both the weaker and the stronger brother to stop passing judgment. This is not merely an admonition that we not pass judgment with our mouths but that we not judge them in our hearts.

For instance, imagine the case of an ancient potluck and a new Gentile believer arrives with pork chops. He's too naive to know that there are those that might be stumbled to sin by bringing them to the potluck. Nevertheless, the weaker brothers are commanded to bear with him in love. They are not to think it unwise of him that he is able to enjoy pork chops.

But, I would hope that an Elder at that meal would take the young man aside and explain to him that his fellow heirs in Christ may be tempted to sin by seeing him eat those pork chops - try as they might that they bear with him in love. The young man would then be impelled by his love of Christ and the love for those that Christ has died for. He'll exclaim: "May it never be. I'll never eat pork chops again in their presence because I love those whom Christ has died for!"

But, what would be a terrible shame, is if the Elder came to him and said: Don't you know that pork chops are dangerous? It may be OK for some Christians but many have died of disease from eating them. I know you know how to cook them and eat them safely but, I'm just saying, you can't be sure that the next time you eat pork chops may be your last."

In the first example, the young believer has been rightly impelled by the Elder to act in love toward his weaker brothers. In the second example, he has been wrongly impelled to act purely out of fear with no reference to the reasons that Paul gives in Romans 14.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Except, Anthony, the only reason it is not apt is because you have introduced new elements to the story or have read into elements of the story that are not present. This is an ancient potluck (circa 50 A.D.). To say that nobody thinks that eating pork is dangerous is not only false but it is immaterial. The fictional elder does think it's dangerous and the use of the adverb: "...to act purely..." indicates the problem with the motivation. He doesn't, as you suggest he might, motivate by love of neighbor much less love of brother. Thus, there is an obvious problem with the motivation.

My point was to demonstrate that the first taking aside was completely in-line with the manner that Paul demonstrated. In fact, my story is probably a most apt example as pork would have been exactly a meat that a Jewish believer would have had a scruple over. Hence, I was trying to keep the story within the context of the admonition of Romans 14. Whether or not other motivations can be demonstrated elsewhere in Scripture, in Romans 14 would you care to exegete a motivation other than the one I have demonstrated except to offer, as I have already, that unsafe behavior certainly can be warned against but it's a matter of how it is approached?

I disagree that ignorance is equivalent to being unwise. The Scriptures do not equate knowledge with wisdom and they do not ascribe folly to youthful naiveté. There is a category for each in the Proverbs - the foolish are those that reject wisdom while the simple are those that have yet attained it. If all one means by unwise is ignorant then I have no interest in splitting hairs but unwise carries many more connotations than ignorance or naiveté does. {Incidentally, please don't start a purposeless argument over the word knowledge.}

Next, assume the young man assumed that the elder was trying to motivate him with a loving attitude about the danger of pork. He takes it on board but then concludes that he is still able to cook pork safely because, like the Japanese blowfish chefs, he comes from generations of pork cookers that have known how to prepare pork properly. He thus continues to bring porkchops to the potluck. Again, part of the "... terrible shame..." of that motivation is that the young man still has no reference to the other believers in the congregation. He's oblivious that he's causing other men to stumble. Thus, he keeps bringing them thinking he's blessing everyone with his pork chops and all the other weaker brothers are long-suffering and bearing with him in love but he's causing offense in complete ignorance. Thus, the motivation out of danger suffers from a profound inadequacy here in that it gives absolutely no reference to "...those that Christ died for..." as the context of Romans 14 repeatedly underlines. In point of fact, the unwise party in my little parable would have been the Elder in the second instance who, though he should have known better, did not properly instruct the young man.

Rev. Winzer agrees that the story is apt as far as an example goes. It frankly struck me that you were trying to introduce any distractive element to avoid interacting with the thrust of this thread as it has proceeded in recent posts. Rather than taking apart the tangential elements of the parable, why not offer some interpretation of Romans 14 and how Paul motivates the believers instead? There's a season for every argument. I have argued against dangerous behavior elsewhere but the important thing here is the context of the passage and the context of the discussion and not what may be more broadly "wise" otherwise we can introduce the whole of Proverbs and completely de-rail this thread.

Finally, I'm a bit surprised you would say that nobody think that eating pork is dangerous. I did a quick Google search on "eating pork is dangerous" and there were many results for that search including this article: http://www.moseshand.com/studies/eatingpork.htm It even uses Scripture to help its argument. I distinctly remember learning all through my formative years in Biology the bacterial dangers of improperly cooked pork. Read the article and it'll even make you consider cutting pork completely out of your diet.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

In this discussion no reference has been made to self-denial. When we (in the affluent West) deny ourselves nothing – under the cloak of liberty – then our life-style may undermine the Gospel. Why any Christian may want to go to a pub is a puzzle to me, especially when I think about time and money. Why be satisfied with so little when Christ offers us so much? I am tee-total but fail to see from Scripture how this view should be imposed on all Christians. I do not consider drinking in moderation to be sinful – and the conscience must not be bound. Mind you, unless American pubs are different from English ones, I know where I'd rather not be. I think I am just about ready for a (non-alcoholic) drink. One final point, why have so many churches departed from serving communion wine? Are we wiser than our LORD?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In this discussion no reference has been made to self-denial.

Whether the actual word "self-denial" has been used, the concept has certanly been referenced a number of times.