Flaunting Christian Liberty - Page 2

bwsmith · #41 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 03:43 PM

Thank you for raising this issue – although I as somewhat stunned to see how many times my name was mention. I have read carefully all the comments, and thank every poster for their time and effort.

Semper Fidelis · #42 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

That to me is a total contradiction. Perhaps others should not be surprised that there are tee-totalers on the PB. But yet bwsmith had her "feet held to the fire" over her conviction, even though as far as I remember she never used the word sin when it came to drinking.

No, as I pointed out to you, Romans 14 did not apply to bwsmith as the weaker brother.

Her feet were held to the fire because the manner in which she was arguing against the thing was un-Biblical and, also, not the manner in which the "weaker brother" is commanded to act in such situations. I guess you don't want to continue to debate this issue but merely start a whole new thread where this issue is brought up again.

Here is what I said with respect to Romans 14 when you referred to her as a weaker sister

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Again, no she can not. I would ask you to read Calvin in his commentatry on Romans 14 for I believe he is spot on. bwsmith is the wife of an Elder. She is not (or should not be at least) a neophyte in the faith. That's the first point.

The second point is that Romans 14 is primarily addressing those who have scruples that were based upon the Mosaic ordinances that they haven't quite shaken off. In other words, the reason the weaker brother in Romans 14 still has a problem eating pork is that he grew up in a time when it was strictly forbidden to eat pork. The person who has come to fully understand his freedom in Christ is to be in a place where they realize that no food or drink can defile. In this case, abstinence has never been a Biblical command that the Jews would then have to "shake off."

Third, even when we allow for broader application, at the very least the "weaker brother" is not permitted to judge what another brother eats or drinks and say that they dishonor the Lord somehow in their doing of it. Paul's point, to a large extent, is "mind your own business" and that if it's a sin for you then be content with your scruples but don't try to put another brother or sister under the yoke of your scruples. Thus, even if I concede bwsmith is the "weaker brother", the Biblical rebuke to "mind her own business" would be appropriate as essentially an attempt to restrict the liberty of others by announcing "...this is unwise behavior...."

I would point out, as well, that the injunction by Paul is that we should not use our liberty to tempt another brother to do something that they believe in their conscience they would not do. This was not the concern of bwsmith. She was not worried that she would sin, she was worried that others would sin. If bwsmith, again, had expressed a Gospel motivation, admitted she had a personal scruple, and did not personally partake and might be tempted to sin by others if they drank around her, then the case could be made that she is the weaker sister.

I closed the other thread because I am quite weary of the justifying of the unwise use of Scripture with reference to the things we call wise normatively. If you want to continue to discuss on this thread, it will not resurrect that discussion any further. You've had your 2-3 posts about how unjustified the criticism is so let's let it rest.

If you want to discuss Christian Liberty in general then that is fine. Frankly, however, if what I have said about Gospel motivation in the other thread has not sunk in, I'm not sure how this discussion can possibly proceed along positive lines as Romans 6 would be just as normative to discuss Christian liberty as Romans 14.

I have commended that you read Calvin on Romans 14 so I'll quote him below. It should be noted that if we cease doing everything that we fear might "offend a weaker brother" there is no end to the things we could find a person to be offended by.

Quote:

1. Him indeed, etc. He passes on now to lay down a precept especially necessary for the instruction of the Church, — that they who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ their own strength to sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are some weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this happened especially at that time; for the Churches were formed of both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from childhood, were not easily drawn away from them; and there were others who, having never learnt such things, refused a yoke to which they had not been accustomed.

Now, as man’s disposition is to slide from a difference in opinion to quarrels and contentions, the Apostle shows how they who thus vary in their opinions may live together without any discord; and he prescribes this as the best mode, — that they who are strong should spend their labor in assisting the weak, and that they who have made the greatest advances should bear with the more ignorant. For God, by making us stronger than others, does not bestow strength that we may oppress the weak; nor is it the part of Christian wisdom to be above measure insolent, and to despise others. The import then of what he addresses to the more intelligent and the already confirmed, is this, — that the ampler the grace which they had received from the Lord, the more bound they were to help their neighbors.

Not for the debatings of questions. This is a defective sentence, as the word which is necessary to complete the sense is wanting. It appears, however, evident, that he meant nothing else than that the weak should not be wearied with fruitless disputes. But we must remember the subject he now handles: for as many of the Jews still clave to the shadows of the law, he indeed admits, that this was a fault in them; he yet requires that they should be for a time excused; for to press the matter urgently on them might have shaken their faith.

He then calls those contentious questions which disturb a mind not yet sufficiently established, or which involve it in doubts. It may at the same time be proper to extend this farther, even to any thorny and difficult questions, by which weak consciences, without any edification, may be disquieted and disturbed. We ought then to consider what questions any one is able to bear, and to accommodate our teaching to the capacity of individuals.

2. Let him who believes, etc. What Erasmus has followed among the various readings I know not; but he has mutilated this sentence, which, in Paul’s words, is complete; and instead of the relative article he has improperly introduced alius — one, “One indeed believes,” etc. That I take the infinitive for an imperative, ought not to appear unnatural nor strained, for it is a mode of speaking very usual with Paul.

He then calls those believers who were endued with a conscience fully satisfied; to these he allowed the use of all things without any difference. In the mean time the weak did eat herbs, and abstained from those things, the use of which he thought was not lawful. If the common version be more approved, the meaning then will be, — that it is not right that he who freely eats all things, as he believes them to be lawful, should require those, who are yet tender and weak in faith, to walk by the same rule. But to render the word sick, as some have done, is absurd.

3. Let not him who eats, etc. He wisely and suitably meets the faults of both parties. They who were strong had this fault, — that they despised those as superstitious who were scrupulous about insignificant things, and also derided them: these, on the other hand, were hardly able to refrain from rash judgments, so as not to condemn what they did not follow; for whatever they perceived to be contrary to their own sentiments, they thought was evil. Hence he exhorts the former to refrain from contempt, and the latter from excessive moroseness. And the reason which he adds, as it belongs to both parties, ought to be applied to the two clauses, — “When you see,” he says, “a man illuminated with the knowledge of God, you have evidence enough that he is received by the Lord; if you either despise or condemn him, you reject him whom God has embraced.”

4. Who art thou who judgest, etc. “As you would act uncourteously, yea, and presumptuously among men, were you to bring another man’s servant, under your own rules, and try all his acts by the rule of your own will; so you assume too much, if you condemn anything in God’s servant, because it does not please you; for it belongs not to you to prescribe to him what to do and what not to do, nor is it necessary for him to live according to your law.”

Now, though the power of judging as to the person, and also as to the deed, is taken from us, there is yet much difference between the two; for we ought to leave the man, whatever he may be, to the judgment of God; but as to his deeds we may indeed form a decisive opinion, though not according to our own views, but according to the word of God; and the judgment, derived from his word, is neither human, nor another man’s judgment. Paul then intended here to restrain us from presumption in judging; into which they fall, who dare to pronounce anything respecting the actions of men without the warrant of God’s word.

To his own Lord he stands or falls, etc. As though he said, — “It belongs rightly to the Lord, either to disapprove, or to accept what his servant doeth: hence he robs the Lord, who attempts to take to himself this authority.” And he adds, he shall indeed stand: and by so saying, he not only bids us to abstain from condemning, but also exhorts us to mercy and kindness, so as ever to hope well of him, in whom we perceive anything of God; inasmuch as the Lord has given us a hope, that he will fully confirm, and lead to perfection, those in whom he has begun the work of grace.

But by referring to the power of God, he means not simply, as though he had said, that God can do this if he will; but, after the usual manner of Scripture, he connects God’s will with his power: and yet he speaks not here of perpetuity, as though they must stand to the end whom God has once raised up; but he only reminds us, that we are to entertain a good hope, and that our judgments should lean this way; as he also teaches us in another place,

“He who began in you a good work, will perform it to the end.” (Philippians 1:6.)

In short, Paul shows to what side their judgments incline, in whom love abounds.

Barnpreacher · #43 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

No, as I pointed out to you, Romans 14 did not apply to bwsmith as the weaker brother.

From one man to another I say it applies. You're not the final word on the Scripture. Now we can both argue about it till we're blue in the face but lose the arrogant "I pointed it out to you, so that's the final word" attitude. I haven't taken that approach and neither should you. Quite frankly I'm not real interested in what you pointed out to me because I believe you were and are wrong on the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I closed the other thread because I am quite weary of the justifying of the unwise use of Scripture with reference to the things we call wise normatively. If you want to continue to discuss on this thread, it will not resurrect that discussion any further. You've had your 2-3 posts about how unjustified the criticism is so let's let it rest.

I did let it rest. I was done. You had to have the last say after the thread had died down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

If you want to discuss Christian Liberty in general then that is fine. Frankly, however, if what I have said about Gospel motivation in the other thread has not sunk in, I'm not sure how this discussion can possibly proceed along positive lines as Romans 6 would be just as normative to discuss Christian liberty as Romans 14.

And you were instructed by more than a few people (including two ministers) that you were off base in your assessment. Are you willing to examine and listen as much as you want others to do so when you speak?

bwsmith · #44 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 06:42 PM

For the records, it was my humble recollection that use of alcohol thread unfolded with a question – based on an opinion

Are there any here who oppose the consumption of alcohol? If so how would you respond to these: Scripture does not necessarily forbid a Christian from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. In fact, some Scriptures discuss alcohol in positive terms. Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs “drink wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:11 encourages “yes, come buy wine and milk…”

I responded, “The way I oppose Russian roulette, I oppose the use of alcohol. But, guess what? Nobody cares.” I should have added that sniping verses from wisdom literature, or Psalms, and the prophets without reference to other things the Lord says about how we celebrate and what we celebrate isn’t . . . the best way to understanding. Perhaps that would would have taken the discussion in a different direction?

The blessings of created things such as wine, food, music, children, are not unmixed --given the nature of those who receive them. God intended all His creation for good. Because of the Fall, there is only one unalloyed Gift - blessing -- and that is His grace that grants His own to see Christ Jesus Ruling and Resurrected.

I used an analogy that offended many posters. An analogy or metaphor is often shocking – even offending.

The analogy works for all kinds of things – The Bible makes clear that “things” aren’t sinful; the heart is sinful and deceitful above all else. And it is quite adept at misusing things that God intended for blessing. The church is full of overweight and anorexic people whose god is their body. It is full of all kinds of driven people whose god is not the Lord. Indeed as Francis Schaeffer remarked personal peace and affluence, is our – the church’s – most dangerous enemy. Isaiah warned women about the ease with which they were living, and the consequences. (Isaiah 32)

I stated more than once that alcohol consumption is not forbidden – but its use carries serious warnings -- given the problems in the 21st century caused by addictions, esp. among solidly reformed types, I wonder that so many still want their freedoms unhampered.

Theoretical · #45 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 07:09 PM

Here's the problem with the analogy (and yes, I realize all analogies are flawed).

Russian roulette is an inherently unlawful act (against the positive requirement to value life implicit in the 6th Commandment) - it is not merely one of a bunch of things that accumulate to kill you, and may or may not be the proximate killer - if the gun goes off, you are dead or vegetative.

Comparing alcohol usage to russian roulette inherently makes any alcohol
consumption a similar violation of the 6th Commandment, and thus inherently immoral. Can its abuse kill you - of course it can - but not in the same instantaneously morally culpable foolishness of russian roulette. Alcohol use must be moderate and with care, but even with its many risks, it is not russian roulette.

Semper Fidelis · #46 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

From one man to another I say it applies. You're not the final word on the Scripture. Now we can both argue about it till we're blue in the face but lose the arrogant "I pointed it out to you, so that's the final word" attitude. I haven't taken that approach and neither should you. Quite frankly I'm not real interested in what you pointed out to me because I believe you were and are wrong on the issue.

One man to another, I offered exegesis and commentary on the subject so lose the "...you're not the final authority...and arrogant..." charge. In the previous post, I answered your point in detail and you did not respond to a single point I made. 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? Who is arrogant: the man who tries to explain why Romans 14 does not apply and quotes respected exegetes or the man that simply says: "I say it applies"? I never said it was so because I said it was. I presented a case that appealed outside of myself. I assume you don't mean to imply that the proper interpretation rests with you and for me to say otherwise is to be arrogant.

Quote:

I did let it rest. I was done. You had to have the last say after the thread had died down.

...but you resurrected the point of the weaker brother here and I responded because I read down to that point. I felt I needed to bring closure on the point of the weaker brother as well because you have not offered any exegesis other than citing Romans 14 as a whole.

Quote:

And you were instructed by more than a few people (including two ministers) that you were off base in your assessment. Are you willing to examine and listen as much as you want others to do so when you speak?

I have been interacting. I have been echoing Calvin and the Reformed understanding of Liberty and the Gospel on this. I listened to and qualified my position to Rev. Winzer.

I don't count noses on Scriptural principles but I will say that I have had far more public and private agreements by Elders and Pastors than criticism on my points - including many private notes that I'm dead on. Take that for what its worth. I never ignore Rev. Winzer and I believe I qualified to him and even sent him a private note to ensure we're not agreeing violently. If, in the end, he and I disagree with the intent of bwsmith's comments then I can live with that but I don't doubt our agreement if he thought my concern stuck. I tried repeatedly to get assurances that my concern was not accurate and laid out the evidence of posts looking for a Gospel-balancing clue but was never provided one. Read Romans 14, in fact. What motivation does Paul give for the stronger brother to restrict his liberty and what is the motivation for the weaker brother not to judge? That is what I've been talking about all along.

Semper Fidelis · #47 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwsmith

For the records, it was my humble recollection that use of alcohol thread unfolded with a question – based on an opinion

Are there any here who oppose the consumption of alcohol? If so how would you respond to these: Scripture does not necessarily forbid a Christian from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. In fact, some Scriptures discuss alcohol in positive terms. Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs “drink wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:11 encourages “yes, come buy wine and milk…”

I responded, “The way I oppose Russian roulette, I oppose the use of alcohol. But, guess what? Nobody cares.” I should have added that sniping verses from wisdom literature, or Psalms, and the prophets without reference to other things the Lord says about how we celebrate and what we celebrate isn’t . . . the best way to understanding. Perhaps that would would have taken the discussion in a different direction?

The blessings of created things such as wine, food, music, children, are not unmixed --given the nature of those who receive them. God intended all His creation for good. Because of the Fall, there is only one unalloyed Gift - blessing -- and that is His grace that grants His own to see Christ Jesus Ruling and Resurrected.

I used an analogy that offended many posters. An analogy or metaphor is often shocking – even offending.

The analogy works for all kinds of things – The Bible makes clear that “things” aren’t sinful; the heart is sinful and deceitful above all else. And it is quite adept at misusing things that God intended for blessing. The church is full of overweight and anorexic people whose god is their body. It is full of all kinds of driven people whose god is not the Lord. Indeed as Francis Schaeffer remarked personal peace and affluence, is our – the church’s – most dangerous enemy. Isaiah warned women about the ease with which they were living, and the consequences. (Isaiah 32)

I stated more than once that alcohol consumption is not forbidden – but its use carries serious warnings -- given the problems in the 21st century caused by addictions, esp. among solidly reformed types, I wonder that so many still want their freedoms unhampered.

And yet, after all that, you seem to still be unable to speak about a motivation for such things on the basis of Romans 6 or Romans 14. Do you even understand what I'm saying when I talk about a Gospel motivation for obedience because the above argument is not, strictly speaking, a Christian one. I appreciate it for its kernel of truth but it's still not the full picture of why a Christian is motivated to do a thing - especially in Romans 14, since this thread is supposed to be about flaunting Christian Liberty and you did not interact with the texts on the subject.

bwsmith · #48 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Here's the problem with the analogy (and yes, I realize all analogies are flawed).

Russian roulette is an inherently unlawful act (against the positive requirement to value life implicit in the 6th Commandment) - it is not merely one of a bunch of things that accumulate to kill you, and may or may not be the proximate killer - if the gun goes off, you are dead or vegetative.

Comparing alcohol usage to russian roulette inherently makes any alcohol
consumption a similar violation of the 6th Commandment, and thus inherently immoral. Can its abuse kill you - of course it can - but not in the same instantaneously morally culpable foolishness of russian roulette. Alcohol use must be moderate and with care, but even with its many risks, it is not russian roulette.

Thank you for that comment –
I guess it’s more like playing with what you think is an unloaded gun. Again we know what the command is – moderation, and surely few pick up a drink with the desire to something “deadly.” When was the last time that knowing what the commands are, prevented us from inflicting pain? Deadly things may happen – unexpectedly, and unintentionally – either literally or relationally, or spiritually. And the one who drinks may live to see the harm he or she has inflicted, simply by seeing the hurt in the eyes of a spouse or child – the disappointment of a co-worker.

And yes, all are free to use alcohol, and hope their freedoms will not backfire.

tcalbrecht · #49 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwsmith

And yes, all are free to use alcohol, and hope their freedoms will not backfire.

So I take it then you are not offended by folks who enjoy and use beverage alcohol in moderation.

Joshua · #50 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 09:22 PM

*sigh*

MrMerlin777 · #51 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

*sigh*

Davidius · #52 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 09:41 PM

edited by author

Semper Fidelis · #53 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 09:49 PM

Once and for all, the discussion about guns and alchohol and the like will end here.

This thread is about Christian Liberty. Present your Scriptures or case for the motivations for the proper exercise of Christian Liberty. That previous thread was closed for a reason as much as even I keep wanting to take it back up, it needs to die.

calgal · #54 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 09:53 PM

Christian liberty is not the same as license: correct?

It does imply that the Christian is mature enough to know their limits IMNSHO.

Semper Fidelis · #55 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 10:18 PM

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.

bwsmith · #56 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

And yet, after all that, you seem to still be unable to speak about a motivation for such things on the basis of Romans 6 or Romans 14. Do you even understand what I'm saying when I talk about a Gospel motivation for obedience because the above argument is not, strictly speaking, a Christian one. I appreciate it for its kernel of truth but it's still not the full picture of why a Christian is motivated to do a thing - especially in Romans 14, since this thread is supposed to be about flaunting Christian Liberty and you did not interact with the texts on the subject.

No, I am not sure I do understand you – Is what you mean, you want me to “interact”withe texts, Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 10 - before I post a comment?

In the thread on alcohol, I read some posters whose purpose was unclear, but appeared to be one that was to jump all over my answer to a question, based on Scripture taken out of context. And these posters had many assumptions about my thoughts, apparently forgetting the Body of Christ is many and varied. (Rom 14:1-2) I remind them, and myself: “But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table.”

Were I weak in the faith –the confidence that as I work out my salvation, God is at work in me, accomplishing His purposes – I cannot imagine what a discouragement these posts might have been. But they were a great tutorial on how (not) to speak when I disagree with some one, Christian, or not.

Some posters, however chose encouraging and helpful words. (Romans 14:19-21) Because of their solicitude, perhaps gleaners will appreciate how Christians discuss thorny questions?

1 Corinthians 10 is an apt reminder of taking care how we stand – out appearances do not make an inward reality that is pleasing to God.

I certainly hope I have not misunderstood that I have the freedom to state an opinion even based on an understanding of freedom in Christ that is at variance with yours?

With respect, I don’t think Christians have the full picture, this side of glory – nor always our motivations above inspection or suspicion (Romans 7)

bwsmith · #57 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

So I take it then you are not offended by folks who enjoy and use beverage alcohol in moderation.

Depends on who the folks are . . . generally, no.