I heard a John MacArthur broadcast a couple of weeks ago where he gave his explanation of 1 Cor. 8, in that if a believer was asked to meat sacrificed to idols in the presence of an unbeliever, he should go ahead and eat. If, however, a believer was present who would be offended, he should not eat.

His bottom line was "if it comes down to offending the unbeliever or the believer, offend the unbeliever"

I was thinking about this in the context of a situational ethics scenario I've heard presented before. It goes like this...

"If I am out to dinner with some fellow Christians and the waitress comes up to us and asks if we would like to see the beer menu, and one of my companions says 'we're Christians, we don't drink', then I would be compelled, for the gospel's sake, to order a beer!"


I've always agreed with this conclusion, but I'm wondering if it goes against MacArthur's "offend the unbeliever, not the believer" train of thought?

__________________
The Piper will lead us to reason...

Rick Larson
Hope Christian and Missionary Alliance Church
Apple Valley, MN.

I would say a few things:

1. MacArthur is biased against the Christian's consumption of alcohol in the first place.

2. Although we should be careful not to cause a brother to stumble, the weaker Brother (as it were) has a responsibility to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, which includes Christian Liberty.

3. Thus, I think one should abstain if he is going to offend the weaker brother by partaking of alcohol, but only insofar as the weaker brother is ignorant of the concept of Christian Liberty.

4. If, at this point, the weaker brother is ignorant of a Christian's liberty concerning things indifferent, the stronger should gently teach the weaker Christian the truth of such.

5. After exposure to the concept of Christian liberty, as found in the Scriptures, if the weaker brother persists in acting offended, etc., although the stronger brother should still be sensitive, he need not feel the need to hide his partaking of things indifferent because the weaker brother's objection is no longer out of ignorance, but out of their own personal conviction they would desire to press on everyone else.

6. Ultimately, if things work out as I noted above, the stronger brother may not want to even drink on an outing with this weaker brother, because one must question how it would edify either the believer, or unbeliever, in any way. However, if the weaker brother says such a thing like, "We don't drink. We're Christians," it is my opinion that the stronger brother ought not let his good be spoken of as evil.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I do not understand this scenario, it is the companion who is the believer and it is him who you would offend by drinking therefore according to MacArthur you should worry about offending your brother and probably not drink.

If in this scenario it was the waitress who said that Christians should not drink (and was not a believer herself) then the Chritian society of frothblowers should just get the drinks in.

I must say I agree with MacArther here, the Church (and hence Christians) should not worry what the world thinks if we are doing what is right, we do however have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters.

If a brother thinks that we are acting sinfully then our first recourse should NEVER be to jump straight to Christian liberty, no matter how confident we are we should take steps to consider our position (with the input of the church) and our normal course of action should always be not to offend the brother. If after reflection we have Christian liberty in that area then next time we should go to dinner without the offended brother, we should never hide what we do but neither do we have a principal of being able to offend our brothers as a right (I am not saying that anyone here is suggesting this course of action).

If a servant of Satan does not like what we do then to be honest that is tough, as long as we are treating him as we would wish to be treated ourselves there is not a problem.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

I do not disagree with any of these responses. But where does 1 Cor 8 or Rom 14 teach that we should be watchful that we do not 'offend' or place a stumblingblock in the path of the unbeliever? Our Christianity necessarily 'offends' the unbeliever.

You are either blessed by Christ or offended by Christ. Why should I have any concern over whether I offend an unbeliever? It is expected.

__________________

Yes, that's what I'm getting at, whether this would be the correct assumption to make. But I do see Joshua's point, that when being the weaker brother turns into forcing one's conviction upon others, a line needs to be drawn.

I only based this on MacArthur's comment that "if it comes down to offending an unbeliever or a believer, it is better to offend the unbeliever".

Indeed! And the weaker brother is specifically instructed not to do so!

The problem is, everyone assumes himself to be the stronger brother!

Thankfully, the Scripture identifies the weaker brother: The one who is unnecessarily bound or offended by the partaking of things indifferent.

If only things were always this obvious.

The strange thing is I was reading 1 Cor 8 and 9 this morning/afternoon and wondered to myself: "If Paul was around today, doubtless some PB members would complain about his 'situational ethics', saying that it's okay to eat meat in some circumstances but not in others" - maybe I have a warped mind?

One question Josh: Is there any such thing as "things indifferent", surely the decision whether or not to eat meat/drink alcohol or abstain from these things is a choice between two ethically righteous decisions? It only becomes an unrighteous decision if it involves offending a weaker brother?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Especially the ones with the big muscles.

When I say "indifferent," I suppose what I mean is that said "indifferent" thing cannot be considered universally unethical/sinful/evil to all people without exception, since Scripture doesn't really address it. For example, cheese dip.

Cheese dip is something good according to 1 Tim. 4 (that is, by good and necessary consequence)

Not to all without exception. There are some who could be psychologically addicted to Cheese Dip. It has become their idol. Absurd example, I know, but one could fill in the blank with whatever he likes.

In that case it is a sinful abuse of something good. Wine is the gift of God (i.e. something good), but the abuse of wine is sin.

Which would be what I've asserted all along, Brother.

Fair enough.

Is this a veiled confession, pal?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Daniel, maybe this will give you a better understanding of my understanding (or maybe lack thereof) concerning Christian Liberty:

Hypocrites Concerning Matters of Liberty

Nope. But I do love some Velveeta and Rotel with Corn Chips.