Flaunting Christian Liberty - Page 3

Semper Fidelis · #81 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:17 AM

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 · #82 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 08:47 AM

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 · #83 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotzo

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.

Quote:

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 · #84 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 09:40 AM

“. . . 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 · #85 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 09:51 AM

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 · #86 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crhoades

...
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 · #87 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

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 · #88 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwsmith

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 · #89 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

... 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 · #90 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

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 · #91 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 11:16 AM

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?

Quote:

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.)

Civbert · #92 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crhoades

... 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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

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 · #93 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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 · #94 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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 · #95 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 05:00 PM

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 · #96 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I
Here's my post again to calgal:

Quote:

...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 · #97 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 06:09 PM

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 · #98 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 06:59 PM

“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 · #99 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.