Tag: Christian Liberty

Categories
Theology Worship

Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

From a teaching series on Worship, this lesson explored the notions of Sphere Sovereignty and the limits of authority that God has placed upon certain institutions. It then explored the notion of Liberty of Conscience and how it affects our understanding of corporate Worship.

The lesson notes can be downloaded here: Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the 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 childlike 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. Titus 2:14; I Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13
2. Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Rom. 6:14
3. Rom. 8:28; Psa. 119:71; II Cor. 4:15-18; I Cor. 15:54-57; Rom. 5:9; 8:1; I Thess. 1:10
4. Rom. 5:1-2
5. Rom. 8:14-15; Gal. 4:6; I John 4:18
6. Gal. 3:8-9, 14; Rom. 4:6-8; I Cor. 10:3-4; Heb. 11:1-40
7. Gal. 4:1-7; 5:1; Acts 15:10-11
8. Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19-22
9. John 7:38-39; Acts 2:17-18; II Cor. 3:8, 13, 17-18; Jer. 31:31-34

II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]

10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29
11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24
12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1
13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15

III. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.[14]

14. Gal. 5:13; I Peter 2:16; II Peter 2:19; Rom. 6:15; John 8:34; Luke 1:74-75

IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[15] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.[16]

15. I Peter 2:13-14, 16; Rom. 13:1-8; Heb. 13:17; I Thess. 5:12-13
16. Rom. 1:32; 16:17; I Cor. 5:1, 5, 11-13; II John 1:10-11; II Thess. 3:6, 14; I Tim. 1:19-20; 6:3-4; Titus 1:10-11, 13-14; 3:10; Matt. 18:15-17; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20

Things to consider:

What is the difference between a scruple and something in the Law of God?

How do we handle those whose scruples are more strict than our own?

How do we handle those whose scruples are less strict than our own?

Do the Elders of the Church have the right to decide what is right for worship and everyone just needs to go along?

What if everybody in a Church is fine with something in worship but an element of worship troubles the conscience of a single individual?

Categories
Gospels and Acts Scripture

Hypocrites Concerning Matters of Liberty

Hypocrites Concerning Matters of Liberty –

Matthew 15:1-9

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, “˜Honor your father and your mother,’ and, “˜Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, “˜If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the wordof God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:“”˜This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”

Hypocrites. Everyone’s a hypocrite. To some degree, also, all Christians are hypocrites. In fact, sometimes, especially Christians are hypocrites. Sometimes this hypocrisy is due to ignorance of what the Scriptures teach. Sometimes it’s due to secret sinful indulgences in which people want to continue, unfettered. Then, at other times, it’s simply due to an extra-Biblical “piety” that has caused even the most well-meaning of people to make commandments out of the traditions of men.

Jesus asked a scathing rhetorical question to the Pharisees: Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? He was pointing out their blatant hypocrisy of claiming to be the spiritual authorities of their day, but antithetically nullifyng (in their minds, anyway) the commandments of God by their spiritual “insights”. Now, as noted earlier, some do this out of spiritual ignorance. There are instances in which both ignorance and an extra-Biblical “piety” play a part. Consider, for example, the subject of Christians drinking alcoholic beverages.

Most professing Christians in America, because of the prohibition and temporance movements of times past, ignorantly and automatically assume that the mere intake of alcohol for the Christian is sinful. They think this not for Biblical reasons, but for pragmatic reasons. They also believe this to be an honorable and noble cause because of the past abuse which has been rendered due to sinful men’s over-indulgence of alcohol.

To the serious-minded Christian, no doubt, it can be very tempting to jump on this throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater bandwagon, believing it will somehow accomplish a declension in the abuse of alcohol. In fact, though, the opposite is true and can be attested to by the fact that since the time of prohibition, many have seen alcohol as inherently evil. Thus, it’s considered rebellious to partake. Thus, those wanting to rebel will usually abuse this gift of God, in order to show their rebellion, get back at, or irritate those whom they will.

The drinking of alcohol is just one example and is not intended to be the focus of this entry. what I am trying to expose here is the sin and hypocrisy of professing Christians who seek to bind the conscience of other believers concerning things considered as indifferent by Scripture. Sadly, their attempt to legitimate such an idea cannot be adequately substantiated by Scripture, and most appeals then are pragmatic, not according to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

Scripture speaks clearly concerning the Christian’s treatment of things indifferent. Involved herein is the principle of Christian Liberty. Two instances which immediately come to mind are Romans 14, and a portion of 1 Corinthians 10. You see, Christian Liberty of things indifferent works, at least it should work, both ways. The 14th chapter of Romans can almost be divided perfectly in half. The first section discusses the subject of passing judgment on other Christians for their personal convicions on things which are scripturally indifferent. The second portion examines the ultimate crux of the matter: Not being a stumbling block to the “weaker” Christian.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own masterthat he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. – Romans 14:1-4

Here, Paul makes clear that the stronger Christian ought to welcome the “weaker” Christian, but never for the purpose of arguing over opinions (of things indifferent). By “weak” Paul means immature. Now, this doesn’t mean anything negative, necessarily. It simply means, more than likely, a new convert who is not yet mature or educated enough to understand that, for example, meat which has been previously sacrificed to idols insn’t unclean, in and of itself. Therefore, a Christian may freely eat such meat since, to him, it is just meat and is something that can be enjoyed to the glory of God.Paul issues a two-fold admonition here. He says to these two “types” of Christians, “Do not think less or sinful of the other for either his indulgence or his abstinence of the food, because such a matter is indifferent.” Basically, Paul thinks a man should go with his own conscience, but not try to bind the conscience of another, since it cannot be proven Biblically that one must or must not partake. Each one should be convinced in his own mind.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. – Romans 14:13-23

Next, Paul speaks to the matter of not causing a weaker brother to stumble. Now, when it comes to the subject of alcohol, I believe this is a much misused passage by those who proclaim it sinful to partake thereof. Their thoughts would affirm this kind of statement:

Look, drinking alcohol, in and of itself, is not sinful. But, I believe, because of the abuse that alcohol indulgence has caused over the years, that we ought not partake, because it will cause people to stumble.

These mostly sincere, but nonetheless wrong people will appeal to Romans 14:21, but apparently have overlooked, discarded, or altogether ignored verse 16. There is a balance when it comes to Christian Liberty:

Firstly, we’re not to use our Christian Liberty as license to sin.

Secondly, we should not indulge in Christian Liberty by rubbing it in the face of the weaker brother who may be caused to stumble.

However, this does not mean that a Christian can cry out, “You’re making me stumble!” every time they see a brother engaging in something that is scripturally indifferent. This is precisely Paul’s point in verse 16. The stronger brother needs to patiently, lovingly, but firmly educate the weaker, so as to show him how things scripturally indifferent are not, in and of themselves, sinful to every individual in all circumstances or situations. This education, mind you, ought not be done for the purpose of merely justifying the stronger Christians partaking, but should be done with the intent of edifying and maturing the weaker brother, in Christian love and charity.

The goal for Paul’s admonition here is not simply so the stronger brother can glory in being “smarter” or further along than the weaker. Nor does he have in mind the stronger being justified in all he does. Rather, the goal is the unity of the brethren and the avoidance of one passing judgment on the other for either their parktaking of, or abstaining from, things which are not really addressed by Scripture, and this is the building up of Christian love.

Now we consider 1 Corinthians 10:23-33

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience””I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Here, the context is not merely believers, but also unbelievers. Look, we, being Reformed, need to be honest. We’ve all, I’m sure, been guilty of doing something that we shouldn’t have done in a certain situation, and then attempted to justify it under the guise of Christian Liberty. If you haven’t, that’s great! However, I know that I’m certainly guilty of having done so. This being said, we would do well to remember this statement.

“All things are lawful”, but not all things are helpful

That is, all things which are not contrary to God’s Law, nor unlawful by demand of the State are OK. But just because such is the case, doesn’t mean they’re helpful or, for that matter, necessary. What we must guard against, as Christians, is the over-indulgence of things indifferent and the flaunting thereof. This is the thrust of Paul’s words in the first portion of the passage at hand.

Paul then says that sometimes we abstain from things scripturally indifferent for the sake of not our own conscience, but the conscience of the unbeliever. This is where the indulgence of Christian Liberty can prove detrimental. For example, it is not wise, in the presence of unbelievers, to talk about, say, alcoholic beverages in the same manner they do. Why? Because typically, in the life of the unbeliever, drunkenness is heavily associated with such discussion and is usually the aim of his drinking in the first place (I’m not saying this is always the case, just typically). Now, engaging in such discussion, unless one is showing the utter foolishness of the said behavior, might give the unbeliever the impression that such practice is somehow acceptable. In turn, this could mislead them. Instead, just as it may be with the weaker brother, with time and opportunity, you could make your case Biblically with much patience, so there’s no excuse for anyone’s misunderstanding.

The fact is, brothers and sisters, there is no rigid instruction in this matter, because each situation for each Christian is unique and distinct from another’s. However, there are Biblical principles to guide us in the way we should go, as can be shown by the aforementioned passages. What we must avoid is trying to make commandments out of our personal convictions of things which are scripturally indifferent, lest we be hypocrites like the Pharisees.

Now, may we be faithful to Scripture, sensitive to our consciences as guided by the Holy Spirit, and seek not our own good, but the good of our neighbors. Grace and Peace.

 

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

On the Consumption of Alchohol and Christian Liberty

I picked out one of the posts from the PuritanBoard to discuss an issue with respect to liberty. bfrank writes:

A few years ago I was sitting outside on a patio enjoying a pint with a buddy, having theological and personal discussions…there was absolutely no problem in my conscience or faith about the issue. I knew the Scriptures did not condemn alcohol, but drunkeness. One thing we both gleaned from the afternoon was that if Jesus Christ Himself walked into the place we would have no problem whatsoever. However, if some of the members from church walked in it would be a very uncomfortable situation. Of course this caused further study on my part so that I was certain I wasn't using my liberty for license and that I was on solid biblical ground. I had a friend who was meeting with a pastor friend. The pastor told him that drinking in any form should not be tolerated. He said that the Christian should avoid the appearance of evil, so as to not cause a weaker brother to stumble. He preceded to order a virgin strawberry daquiri. My friend began to scratch his head in disbelief…thinking, "Isn't this the appearance of "evil"? LOL

First, I want to correct the "pastor friend" in the story above. The "weaker brother" in Paul's Epistles is the Pastor! The weaker brother is the Christian who is overly scrupulous where God permits liberty of conscience. Jews who were still convicted, for instance, that they had to abstain from pork were "weaker brothers" and Paul is commanding the Gentile brethren not to give unnecessary offense to cause them to stumble.

NOW, here is the rub. I'm starting to think that I am probably too tolerant of what is not a "weaker brother" spirit with respect to things indifferent but a PHARASAICAL spirit with respect to things indifferent. I believe the response to the weaker brother ought to be done carefully and tenderly but the Pharisee ought to be withstood to his face as a Scriptural pattern.

Calvin's treatment of Christian liberty is quoted in part below and he does a great job of differentiating between a personal scruple and a human tradition that super-adds to the Scriptures that binds the consciences of men. Does the Southern Baptist Conventions' ruling that those who consume alchohol should be excluded from Church Office constitute something that Christians should condemn as Pharasaical?  Incidentally, the ruling says that a Southern Baptist is not even permitted to work at an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages.

More basically, however, what if a pastor is teaching this? Should we, like Paul did to Peter, withstand that spirit and, if so, how?  Pastors and Elders, after all, are not supposed to be those that are weak in the faith.  It is, frankly, a sad state of affairs that those who ought to be teachers of men (and are in such positions) need to be taught on the basic principles of the Gospel.  For make no mistake about it:  the issue of Christian Liberty stabs at the very heart of the Gospel and those who begin on the path of the Pharisee run the risk of losing far more than their Christian Liberty.

Without further ado, here is John Calvin from his treatment on Christian Liberty in the Instituties of the Christian Religion

11. I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again, “Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way;” and many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.” elsewhere he says, “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.” Again “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.” Finally, “Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God.” Also in another passage, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”46 455455 61 461 Rom. 14:1, 13; 16:1; 1 Cor. 8:9; 10:25, 29, 32; Gal. 5:13. Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind,” (Mt. 15:14). The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense is not to be regarded.

12. The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The acts are different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We have here the proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” (Gal. 2:3-5). We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger with weak consciences. In all cases we must study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,” says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). There is nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.