Don't smoke,drink alcohol,see movies,listen to...

[py3ak]

Some wise words by Charles Hodge on a relevant passage from I Corinthians:


[quote:8478fe41c8]
29, 30. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another (man's) conscience? For it I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

As in the preceding vs. 25, 27 the word conscience refers to one's own conscience, to prevent its being so understood in v. 28, Paul adds the explanation, 'Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other's.' That is, 'I do not mean your conscience, but the conscience of the man who warned you not to eat.' For why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? These and the words following admit of three interpretations.

1. If connected with the preceding clause, they must give the reason why Paul meant "the conscience of the other."'Conscience I say, not one's own, but of the other; for why is my liberty (or conscience) to be judged by another man's conscience? if I eat with thanksgiving (and with a good conscience, why am I blamed?') The obvious objection to this interpretation is, that it exalts a subordinate clause into the principal matter. It was plain enough that Paul did not mean the man's own conscience, and therefore it is unnecessary to take up two verses to prove that he did not. Besides, this interpretation makes the apostle change sides. He has from the beginning been speaking in behalf of the weak. This interpretation makes him here speak almost in terms of indignation in behalf of the strong, who certainly need no advocate. They did not require to be told that their liberty was not to be restricted by the scruples of the weak.

2. A much better sense is obtained by connecting this passage with the 28th verse. 'Do not eat out of regard to the conscience of your brother; for why should my (your) liberty be judged (i.e. condemned) by another conscience; why should I be blamed for what I receive with thanksgiving?' That is, why should I make such a use of my liberty as to give offense? This brings the passage into harmony with the whole context, and connects it with the main idea of the preceding verse, and not with an intermediate and subordinate clause. The very thing the apostle has in view is to induce the strong to respect the scruples of the weak. They might eat of sacrificial meat at private tables with freedom, so far as they themselves were concerned; but why, he asks, should they do it so as to give offense, and cause the weak to condemn and speak evil of them.

3. This passage is by some commentators regarded as the language of an objector, and not as that of the apostle. The strong, when told not to eat on account of the conscience of a weak brother, might ask, 'Why is my liberty judged by another's conscience - why should I be blamed for what I receive with thanksgiving?' (The 'gar', according to this view, is not for, but intensive, why then.) This gives a very good sense, but it is not consistent with the following verse (which is connected with v. 30 by 'ouv', and not by 'de').

Paul does not go on to answer that objection, but considers the whole matter settled. The second interpretation is the only one consistent alike with what precedes and with what follows. 'Do not eat when cautioned not to do so; for why should you so use your liberty as to incur censure? Whether therefore you eat or drink, do all for the glory of God.' Why is my liberty judged, i.e. judged unfavorably or condemned. If I by grace am a partaker; literally, if I partake with thanksgiving. The word, grace, is here used in the sense of gratia, thanks, as in the common phrase to say grace. See Luke 6:32, 1 Timothy 1:12, etc.
[/quote:8478fe41c8]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Regarding the question of an "alcoholic" who wishes to partake of the Lord's Supper where wine is used, that man should seek counsel from the Session, but yes, he should keep the Lord's commandment and I am sure that he would be blessed for it. The amount of alcohol used in the Lord's Supper is so small anyway, I don't think it is a reasonable concern. I think the question presupposes a false idea that an "alcoholic" is someone who can never be cured of the inordinate desire for alcohol. This is a modern, secular understanding of what the Bible refers to as a "drunkard," and does not consider the work of the Holy Spirit in freeing a man from that sin. And that's what it is -- ie., sin, not a disease.

In much the same way, a man who is prone to break the Seventh Commandment should not be discouraged from marriage, but rather encouraged (with counsel). Marriage is a help. Likewise, keeping God's commandment with respect to the use of wine in the Lord's Supper results in a sacramental means of grace that may be a great blessing to the man who has been in bondage to alcohol.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:85dcf2432a][i:85dcf2432a]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:85dcf2432a]
Andrew, that does make sense: I guess I do find it necessary to separate people whose doctrine is legalistic from people who simply hold to a different interpretation of practice from Scripture than I do-- it is the difference between perverting the gospel and loving the gospel.

I was wondering how Acts 15 fits into all of this: the Jerusalem council was called because of people who were teaching legalism: that the gentiles had to be circumcised to be converted. The council ends up by deciding that this is not the gospel, but by decreeing that the Gentiles should practice abstinence in some areas:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Fornication is obvious: I can see pollutions of idols... (though elsewhere weren't they give the liberty to eat such things, if they didn't inquire about them?) What about things strangled and blood? I think one of them refers back to the OT (though I can't remember which one) but at least one of them seems more-- arbitrary. As if they are imposing on the Gentiles an [i:85dcf2432a]application[/i:85dcf2432a] of some Biblical command (such as the law of charity), rather than the Biblical command itself.

I'm not sure about what I'm saying here, but I do think Acts 15 has to play into this-- though we are really off Bob's topic now, aren't we? I'm sorry, Bob. Maybe we should start another thread? (I don't have much more to contribute: I just want to understand from others how Acts 15 fits in.)

At the very least, the same apostles that warned against people forbidding meats in another context forbad meats themselves in this one... yet this is certainly not given to us as an example of ecclesiastical legalism. How does this reconcile?

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by a mere housewife] [/quote:85dcf2432a]

An important quick point though, is that "legalism" is perhaps the most misunderstood theological term today. It does not mean, as I think Andrew implies, a stricter interpretation of Scriptural commands or laws than another person's. It means that one believes that one is [i:85dcf2432a]justified[/i:85dcf2432a] by the keeping of commands.

This is a critical distinction - since if one advocates complete abstinence and yet at the same time does not say that abistinence is required foir salvation, then one can be unbiblical and unwise, but not a legalist.

That is why we have Paul acting in a "contrary" fashion in Acts 16:3, where he circumcises Timothy and Gal. 2:3, where he does not circumcise Titus. Where it is simply a matter of opening doors (and minds) to the gospel by pulling down artificial barriers, Paul will oblige. Where it is insisted upon as a requirement of justification, Paul would rather die than submit.

I think this is instructive in how we view Acts 15 (remember that part of Acts 15 talks about circumcision, and one of the first things Paul does is circumcise his assistant!)

 

[blhowes]

[b:c881b9a54d]Fred wrote:[/b:c881b9a54d]
This is a critical distinction - since if one advocates complete abstinence and yet at the same time does not say that abistinence is required foir salvation, then one can be unbiblical and unwise, but not a legalist.

Good point.

Sometimes its difficult to make that distinction. On the one hand, some people [b:c881b9a54d]say[/b:c881b9a54d] that they believe that a person is saved by grace and that abstaining from drinking, smoking, seeing movies, etc., is just evidence of the sanctification process. On the other hand, they also look at those same individuals and wonder if they're really saved - if they really got saved, would they be doing x, y, and z?

Bob

 

[Ianterrell]

Bob,

Some friends and I have a WCF study we're doing. Afterwards we go to the pub for beer and burgers.

 

[blhowes]

[b:a91596a6c3]Ian wrote:[/b:a91596a6c3]
Some friends and I have a WCF study we're doing. Afterwards we go to the pub for beer and burgers.

Ian, I'm shocked!!! Hasn't anybody ever told you that burgers aren't good for you! They're way to greasy and they're bad for your cholestorol!

Please reconsider what you're doing to yourself.

Bob

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by blhowes]

 

[Ianterrell]

They were pretty greasy actually, and medium rare too.

 

[blhowes]

[b:b6a17d5d9b]Ian wrote:[/b:b6a17d5d9b]
They were pretty greasy actually, and medium rare too.

Ian, Ian, Ian!

Maybe if you drank more of the beers you wouldn't be hungry for those awful grease burgers. Just a suggestion. Hope it helps.
Bob

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by blhowes]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Fred,

Thanks for your input. I'm afraid I don't know how to clip quotes but I'll refer readers to your earlier post.

I appreciate the distinction you are making. If it holds, that's fine with me. However, permit me to explore it further. If a person is convinced that to drink is sin and sees another believer enjoying their liberty to drink alcohol, will they not see that brother as going on in impenitent sin? And if so, will they not have reason to question that person's salvation? And does this not equate to legalism?

Also, Matthew 15, which I take to be the classic passage on legalism, makes no reference to justification. It does speak to the danger of supplanting God's commandments with the traditions of men which bind consciences in error.

You're right, of course, that the definition of legalism is crucial. If I have misunderstood it, I stand corrected. But the definition that I am operating under is that it involves adding man's requirements to the holiness of God, whether for purposes of justification or sanctification.

~Andrew

 

[a mere housewife]

Mr. Greco's post clarified things for me, too-- it seems that we ought to read the other passages in the light of salvation, as elsewhere the apostles themselves required abstinence/circumcision in non-salvific controversies.

Andrew, I understand your dilemma: I've often struggled with that kind of dilemma myself. But I think it helps to realise that the definition of impenitence is willfully persisting in known sin. We all "persist" in unknown sins daily-- I've understood David's prayer "cleanse thou me from secret sins" to be a confession of and a repentance for these things. I think this is the attitude of those who understand the gospel: that God would forgive us not only our known sins for Christ's sake, but our unknown ones as well, because from head to foot, there is no soundness in us. We all continue sinning in ignorance (and I am ashamed to say that I even often continue sinning not in ignorance); but we are not unrepentant. I think it is the principle of charity that we assume the other person to be broken over their corruption as a whole before God.

I'm not sure of what I'm about to say because I'm not an exegete, and I would really like to know what others think of the Matthew passage: but when I read the Matthew passage yesterday, my thoughts were that it didn't speak to the issue of erring believers so much as the other passages you quoted, because the people Jesus was addressing had no understanding of His person, or of His teaching. They had added to God's laws for salvation itself. They were teaching that God required these things for moral perfection, and moral perfection was all they had to stand on: they didn't acknowledge the Saviour, though He was physically speaking to them.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
They were pretty greasy actually, and medium rare too.

He's eating strangled blood!!! Get him!! :bigsmile:

 

[Ivan]

The title of this thread reminds me of a little ditty we use to kid ourselves about as Baptist youth:

I don't smoke,
And I don't chew,
And I don't go
With girls that do!

 

[Peter]

The irony about Fundamentalist legalism (admittedly we are being loose with the word) is that its an antinominian relativistic legalism. They believe in discontinuity between the OT and NT so they deny the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law yet in its absense they impose rigid yet unwarrented culturally relative standards. Which actually fits well with their concept of a fickle God who changes from dispensation to dispensation. See "House Divided."

On the other hand, Greg mentions Acts 15. The council of Jerusalem temporarily suspended some of our liberties under the Gospel for the sake of those Christian Jews who were offended by the most repugnantly anti-Jewish practices of the converts. In some situations perhaps it would also be fiting for us to conform to the "legalists" for the sake of unity. For example, some ministers in the RPCNA remain steadfastly pro-temperance. Dont you think it would've been wise to keep the anti-alcohol prohibition until they die?

[Edited on 16-1-2005 by Peter]

 

[RamistThomist]

Whenever you deny the law of God you posit cultural mores as the absolute standard for right and wrong.

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by Ivan
The title of this thread reminds me of a little ditty we use to kid ourselves about as Baptist youth:

I don't smoke,
And I don't chew,
And I don't go
With girls that do!

Another variation of that diddy is:

Don't smoke, drink, dance or chew
And stay away from girls who do!

 

[street preacher]

Legalism is when we do things to gain favor from the Lord. Obedience is when we do things because the Lord says to and not because we are trying to gain favor with the Lord, and because we already have salvation. We also need to avoid the appearance of evil. I have a drink every once in a while. But we need to be careful.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Whenever you deny the law of God you posit cultural mores as the absolute standard for right and wrong.

Excellent answer!!

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by blhowes
Well, I've gotta go now. My beer's getting cold and its time to get another cigar.

Bob, surely you're not implying that you like your beer lukewarm!

 

[Peter]

In my experience, Americans are the only people who actually drink beer cold.

 

[gwine]

I rather like beer closer to room temperature. Of course, it needs to be better than the swill that my sister's boyfriend drinks. Robert the Bruce from 3 Floyds is a good choice.

 

[gwine]

Or Moose Drool from Big Sky.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by blhowes
Well, I've gotta go now. My beer's getting cold and its time to get another cigar.

Bob, surely you're not implying that you like your beer lukewarm!

[laughing at myself]
Oops! I guess that didn't come out exactly as intended. Good catch!
[/laughing at myself]

[Edited on 1-16-2005 by blhowes]

 

[blhowes]

While I'm thinking of it, I was wondering if anybody had any incites into the meaning of Psalm 104:15.

Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

I don't know if there's anybody still on the board who reads 'wine' in the scriptures as being essentially non-alcoholic grape juice, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts especially...and those who think wine means wines too.

I was reading Psalm 104 in my daily Bible reading last week, picturing in my mind all the things mentioned that God created, just marveling at God's hand in His creation. When I read verse 15 it seemed interesting that wine would be included along with the rest of the things mentioned. I thought that if the wine is essentially grape juice, I couldn't see how it would make my heart glad (I like grape juice, but it doesn't really do anything for me-any more than a ham sandwich would). If it was alcoholic wine, I was wondering if making the heart glad had anything at all to do with the effects of alcohol (catching a buzz) or if it meant something else.

What are your thoughts about that verse?

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by blhowes

Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

If it was alcoholic wine, I was wondering if making the heart glad had anything at all to do with the effects of alcohol (catching a buzz) or if it meant something else.

What are your thoughts about that verse?

I wonder what Calvin had to say about this verse...I'm sure much. Andrew?

Wine has medicinal qualities to it, including helping the heart function better. Maybe it has something to do with that. Paul told Timothy to have a little wine for his stomach's sake. Obviously, people in the past used wine for only purposes than just the pleasure of drinking.

God does want us to enjoy life too. If wine brings you pleasure, in a God-honoring way, then we certainly are glad. I'd be a bit careful with the "buzz". Please, only in the confides of your home or with a designated driver.

BTW, wine and beer both gave me a headache, wine more so than beer. Maybe I'm not drinking the right kind of wine, eh? I don't think I've had a glass of wine for over half a year and only a couple of beer within that period.

I guess I'll have to find my gladness elsewhere.

 

[gwine]

I guess I'll have to find my gladness elsewhere.

Psalm 37:4 (ESV)

Delight yourself in the LORD,
and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Psalm 100:2 (ESV)

Serve the LORD with gladness!
Come into his presence with singing!

and the list goes on and on

Where else can we find true happiness?

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by gwine

I guess I'll have to find my gladness elsewhere.

Psalm 37:4 (ESV)

Delight yourself in the LORD,
and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Psalm 100:2 (ESV)

Serve the LORD with gladness!
Come into his presence with singing!

and the list goes on and on

Where else can we find true happiness?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by blhowes

Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

If it was alcoholic wine, I was wondering if making the heart glad had anything at all to do with the effects of alcohol (catching a buzz) or if it meant something else.

What are your thoughts about that verse?

I wonder what Calvin had to say about this verse...I'm sure much. Andrew?

Calvin had an excellent perspective on the use of wine. His salary in Geneva included 250 gallons of wine annually. Calvin wrote in the Institutes: "We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food...or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine." Calvin says that the miracle at the wedding feast in Cana by our Lord resulted in the "most excellent wine." And "Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking red wine" (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin)

Calvin laid down two basic conditions for drinking. First, it must be moderate, "lest men forget themselves, drown their senses, and destroy their strength." His second consideration may surprise the ignorant and even shock the pietist; he argued that "in making merry," those who enjoy wine "feel a livelier gratitude to God." Calvin certainly was no spoilsport. As historian Will Durant noted in The Reformation, "He bade his followers be cheerful, play harmless games like bowling or quoits, and enjoy wine in moderation."

Source: Drinking With Calvin and Luther, Jim West, p. 53

Here's Calvin's take on this verse:

15. And wine that cheereth the heart of man. In these words we are taught, that God not only provides for men's necessity, and bestows upon them as much as is sufficient for the ordinary purposes of life, but that in his goodness he deals still more bountifully with them by cheering their hearts with wine and oil. Nature would certainly be satisfied with water to drink; and therefore the addition of wine is owing to God's superabundant liberality. The expression, and oil to make his face to shine, has been explained in different ways. As sadness spreads a gloom over the countenance, some give this exposition, That when men enjoy the commodities of wine and oil, their faces shine with gladness. Some with more refinement of interpretation, but without foundation, refer this to lamps. Others, considering the letter m, mem to be the sign of the comparative degree, take the meaning to be, that wine makes men's faces shine more than if they were anointed with oil. But the prophet, I have no doubt, speaks of unguents, intimating that God not only bestows upon men what is sufficient for their moderate use, but that he goes beyond this, giving them even their delicacies.

The words in the last clause, and bread that sustains man's heart, I interpret thus: Bread would be sufficient to support the life of man, but God over and above, to use a common expression, bestows upon them wine and oil. The repetition then of the purpose which bread serves is not superfluous: it is employed to commend to us the goodness of God in his tenderly and abundantly nourishing men as a kind-hearted father does his children. For this reason, it is here stated again, that as God shows himself a foster-father sufficiently bountiful in providing bread, his liberality appears still more conspicuous in giving us dainties.

But as there is nothing to which we are more prone, than to abuse God's benefits by giving way to excess, the more bountiful he is towards men, the more ought they to take care not to pollute, by their intemperance, the abundance which is presented before them. Paul had therefore good reason for giving that prohibition, (Romans 13:14)

"Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof;"

for if we give full scope to the desires of the flesh, there will be no bounds. As God bountifully provides for us, so he has appointed a law of temperance, that each may voluntarily restrain himself in his abundance. He sends out oxen and asses into pastures, and they content themselves with a sufficiency; but while furnishing us with more than we need, he enjoins upon us an observance of the rules of moderation, that we may not voraciously devour his benefits; and in lavishing upon us a more abundant supply of good things than our necessities require, he puts our moderation to the test. The proper rule with respect to the use of bodily sustenance, is to partake of it that it may sustain, but not oppress us. The mutual communication of the things needful for the support of the body, which God has enjoined upon us, is a very good check to intemperance; for the condition upon which the rich are favored with their abundance is, that they should relieve the wants of their brethren. As the prophet in this account of the divine goodness in providence makes no reference to the excesses of men, we gather from his words that it is lawful to use wine not only in cases of necessity, but also thereby to make us merry. This mirth must however be tempered with sobriety, first, that men may not forget themselves, drown their senses, and destroy their strength, but rejoice before their God, according to the injunction of Moses, (Leviticus 23:40; ) and, secondly, that they may exhilarate their minds under a sense of gratitude, so as to be rendered more active in the service of God. He who rejoices in this way will also be always prepared to endure sadness, whenever God is pleased to send it. That rule of Paul ought to be kept in mind, (Philippians 4:12,)

"I have learned to abound, -- I have learned to suffer want."

If some token of the divine anger is manifest, even he who has an overflowing abundance of all kinds of dainty food, will restrict himself in his diet knowing that he is called to put on sackcloth, and to sit among ashes. Much more ought he whom poverty compels to be temperate and sober, to abstain from such delicacies. In short, if one man is constrained to abstain from wine by sickness, if another has only vapid wine, and a third nothing but water, let each be content with his own lot, and willingly and submissively wean himself from those gratifications which God denies him.

The same remarks apply to oil. We see from this passage that ointments were much in use among the Jews, as well as among the other eastern nations. At the present day, it is different with us, who rather keep ointments for medicinal purposes, than use them as articles of luxury. The prophet, however, says, that oil also is given to men, that they may anoint themselves therewith. But as men are too prone to pleasure, it is to be observed, that the law of temperance ought not to be separated from the beneficence of God, lest they abuse their liberty by indulging in luxurious excess. This exception must always be added, that no person may take encouragement from this doctrine to licentiousness.

Moreover, when men have been carefully taught to bridle their lust, it is important for them to know, that God permits them to enjoy pleasures in moderation, where there is the ability to provide them; else they will never partake even of bread and wine with a tranquil conscience; yea, they will begin to scruple about the tasting of water, at least they will never come to the table but in fearfulness. Meanwhile, the greater part of the world will wallow in pleasures without discrimination, because they do not consider what God permits them; for his fatherly kindness should be to us the best mistress to teach us moderation.

 

[turmeric]

I have a question - it has been addressed before but it seemed the answers were not based on actual experience. I have friends I would like to invite to my homegroup but some of the members have just discovered that it's okay to drink beer, so they do it alot, and the people I want to invite have not yet learned to deal with their intemperance. I don't want to tempt a weaker brother or sister to sin.

BTW; I have the same problem with food that these people do with alcohol.

 

[Ivan]

Calvin laid down two basic conditions for drinking. First, it must be moderate, "lest men forget themselves, drown their senses, and destroy their strength." His second consideration may surprise the ignorant and even shock the pietist; he argued that "in making merry," those who enjoy wine "feel a livelier gratitude to God." Calvin certainly was no spoilsport. As historian Will Durant noted in The Reformation, "He bade his followers be cheerful, play harmless games like bowling or quoits, and enjoy wine in moderation."

So Calvin was a fun guy!!

The words in the last clause, and bread that sustains man's heart, I interpret thus: Bread would be sufficient to support the life of man, but God over and above, to use a common expression, bestows upon them wine and oil. The repetition then of the purpose which bread serves is not superfluous: it is employed to commend to us the goodness of God in his tenderly and abundantly nourishing men as a kind-hearted father does his children. For this reason, it is here stated again, that as God shows himself a foster-father sufficiently bountiful in providing bread, his liberality appears still more conspicuous in giving us dainties.

What a beautiful thought. The bounty of the Lord is for us to enjoy. He is a "kind-hearted father". Indeed. Though father and mother forsake us, the LORD will sustain us!

In short, if one man is constrained to abstain from wine by sickness, if another has only vapid wine, and a third nothing but water, let each be content with his own lot, and willingly and submissively wean himself from those gratifications which God denies him.

Yes, we are to be contend with our lot in life. What we have is what the LORD has given us....blessed be the Name of the LORD!

Meanwhile, the greater part of the world will wallow in pleasures without discrimination, because they do not consider what God permits them; for his fatherly kindness should be to us the best mistress to teach us moderation.

Therefore, we are to be an example to the world. All things in moderation!