Show Notes:
THE STRONGER BROTHER
The "stronger brother" is strong in the ways the weaker brother is weak.
1. Faith/Conviction (Rom. 14:22)
2. Knowledge: an idol is nothing, nothing is unclean of itself, all things are lawful, it's not what enter the body that defiles a man.
3. Conscience: not sensitive to things not sinful; calibrated to the Word of God. Enjoys freedom without guilt, to the glory of God.
4. Will: strong-willed, will not surrender to someone else. "For why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?" (1 Cor. 10). Not unduly influenced by unbelievers, Pharisees, or weaker brothers, even differing stronger brothers.
"The stronger brother (or sister) is a Christian who, because of his understanding of Christian freedom and the strength of his conviction, exercises his liberty in good conscience without being improperly influenced by the differing opinions of others."
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (p. 399). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Responsibility is placed on the stronger brother, because weaker brothers will be influenced to sin against their conscience.
Stronger brothers are to care for weaker brothers.
The one who was "stumbled" but was not influenced is a whole nothing type of person.
Rom. 15:2, Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his building up.
The error: leveraging the correct duty to the advantage of those who are not weaker brothers, but merely disagree and believe that what is in freedom is sin; they are not weak in will.
They say, "you're not being loving, building up." They stumble over your use of freedom.
To practically wipe out Christian freedom completely. Misapply the responsibility to cancel out what Paul explained. In the end, there's not adiaphora, no gray area, there is no freedom! Conscience bound by anyone and everyone.
The original "cancel-culture."
The stronger brother is RIGHT.
Paul was a stronger brother.
The weaker brothers are wrong, because they are weak in knowledge.
Whatever is not named as sin in Scripture is *not sin*.
He doesn't refrain from using freedom because he's wrong. It's for the sake of those who don't have that knowledge, are overly sensitive, and can be influenced.
[16:17]
THE PHARISEE
The 3rd category—often misidentified as the weaker brother, and may masquerade as weak in order to manipulate you.
"Who is NOT the weaker brother?"
Article: http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/not-weaker-brother/
This type is not explicitly talked about in 1 Cor. 8, 10; Rom. 14.
We get this profile from the Gospels: the Pharisees.
They are the most memorable example for binding the conscience and defining "sin" according to their man-made traditions.
Adding to God's Law, and often replacing it with their preferences.
They may prove to be unbelievers: there's a condemnation for adding to God's Word.
Like Mormons and forbidding drinking coffee. That's a sinful binding of the conscience.
Definition:
The pharisee is a professing believer with strong convictions who, because of his pride, takes offense at those who resist his pressure to conform to his point of view. By his nature, the pharisee is most in need of the correctives set forth in Romans 14:1–12. Of the three types of differing brothers, he is also the most difficult to get along with. Sometimes he will even claim he is a weaker brother as a way to force you to change. For this reason, Joe Aldrich calls the pharisee a “professional weaker brother.”
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (pp. 409-410). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
An ironic. use of the term "weaker brother," because the Pharisee is not weak in all the ways a weaker brother is.
R.C. Sproul similarly talks about "The Tyranny of the Weaker Brother"
Like Con Men: professional deceivers.
When Pharisees disagree over adiaphora, accuse you of "stumbling," say you are being a "bad witness"—ask: "Were they influenced to follow your example?"
THE STRONGER BROTHER
The "stronger brother" is strong in the ways the weaker brother is weak.
1. Faith/Conviction (Rom. 14:22)
2. Knowledge: an idol is nothing, nothing is unclean of itself, all things are lawful, it's not what enter the body that defiles a man.
3. Conscience: not sensitive to things not sinful; calibrated to the Word of God. Enjoys freedom without guilt, to the glory of God.
4. Will: strong-willed, will not surrender to someone else. "For why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?" (1 Cor. 10). Not unduly influenced by unbelievers, Pharisees, or weaker brothers, even differing stronger brothers.
"The stronger brother (or sister) is a Christian who, because of his understanding of Christian freedom and the strength of his conviction, exercises his liberty in good conscience without being improperly influenced by the differing opinions of others."
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (p. 399). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Responsibility is placed on the stronger brother, because weaker brothers will be influenced to sin against their conscience.
Stronger brothers are to care for weaker brothers.
The one who was "stumbled" but was not influenced is a whole nothing type of person.
Rom. 15:2, Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his building up.
The error: leveraging the correct duty to the advantage of those who are not weaker brothers, but merely disagree and believe that what is in freedom is sin; they are not weak in will.
They say, "you're not being loving, building up." They stumble over your use of freedom.
To practically wipe out Christian freedom completely. Misapply the responsibility to cancel out what Paul explained. In the end, there's not adiaphora, no gray area, there is no freedom! Conscience bound by anyone and everyone.
The original "cancel-culture."
The stronger brother is RIGHT.
Paul was a stronger brother.
The weaker brothers are wrong, because they are weak in knowledge.
Whatever is not named as sin in Scripture is *not sin*.
He doesn't refrain from using freedom because he's wrong. It's for the sake of those who don't have that knowledge, are overly sensitive, and can be influenced.
[16:17]
THE PHARISEE
The 3rd category—often misidentified as the weaker brother, and may masquerade as weak in order to manipulate you.
"Who is NOT the weaker brother?"
Article: http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/not-weaker-brother/
This type is not explicitly talked about in 1 Cor. 8, 10; Rom. 14.
We get this profile from the Gospels: the Pharisees.
They are the most memorable example for binding the conscience and defining "sin" according to their man-made traditions.
Adding to God's Law, and often replacing it with their preferences.
They may prove to be unbelievers: there's a condemnation for adding to God's Word.
Like Mormons and forbidding drinking coffee. That's a sinful binding of the conscience.
Definition:
The pharisee is a professing believer with strong convictions who, because of his pride, takes offense at those who resist his pressure to conform to his point of view. By his nature, the pharisee is most in need of the correctives set forth in Romans 14:1–12. Of the three types of differing brothers, he is also the most difficult to get along with. Sometimes he will even claim he is a weaker brother as a way to force you to change. For this reason, Joe Aldrich calls the pharisee a “professional weaker brother.”
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (pp. 409-410). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
An ironic. use of the term "weaker brother," because the Pharisee is not weak in all the ways a weaker brother is.
R.C. Sproul similarly talks about "The Tyranny of the Weaker Brother"
Like Con Men: professional deceivers.
When Pharisees disagree over adiaphora, accuse you of "stumbling," say you are being a "bad witness"—ask: "Were they influenced to follow your example?"
If not, they are not a weaker brother, they are a Pharisee. It's that easy to tell.
They are weak in knowledge, but strong in will—they would never do what you do. They are not influenced by your freedom, rather they are trying to influence *you* and bind your conscience; elevating their preferences to the level of Divine Law.
*Friesen's description of the Pharisee is in the article linked above.
"The Disobeying Brother"
Key part of defining a Pharisee:
The Pharisee *takes offense* at your freedom when none is given—is not influenced to act.
You did nothing wrong when someone is not pressured to do what you did, yet is accusing you of "stumbling."
They are weak in knowledge, but strong in will—they would never do what you do. They are not influenced by your freedom, rather they are trying to influence *you* and bind your conscience; elevating their preferences to the level of Divine Law.
*Friesen's description of the Pharisee is in the article linked above.
"The Disobeying Brother"
Key part of defining a Pharisee:
The Pharisee *takes offense* at your freedom when none is given—is not influenced to act.
You did nothing wrong when someone is not pressured to do what you did, yet is accusing you of "stumbling."
Show Notes:
Jesus also targeted the hypocrisy and their harmful effects in the lives of others.
Pharisees can't live up to God's standards, or their own.
God's law pierces to the heart.
Modern legalists today are no different: an appearance of holiness.
Binding of the conscience beyond the Word of God, taking lordship other believers, is harmful.
The Apostle Paul wrote against it. Jesus publicly argued against them, and called them names—"you brood of vipers."
That's not "nice," but it is Christlike.
For the purpose of correction and instruction, we need to explain our exercise of liberty.
And we must not give in to legalism even for a moment.
WLC 105 Q. What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the first commandment are . . . making men the lords of our faith and conscience. . .
[http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/making-men-lords/]
It's likely going to be the Legalist that is hostile.
You can never win, unless you give in. You'll never be right in their eyes. They want unconditional surrender.
Admonish, confront, and church discipline (Garry Friesen)
"Jesus never backed off from saying or doing things which were right, even though he knew the Pharisees would take offense at them (cf. Matt. 15:1-14). He kept doing what brought his Father glory and advanced his own Kingdom. At first, when the Pharisees questioned him, Jesus simply explained why he did what he did. But when they started trying to turn people away from following him, Jesus began more directly to rebuke them. He also began to warn others about the Pharisees. He told his disciples to "be on guard" (Matt. 16:6) and to "leave them" (Matt. 15:14). Finally, Jesus openly rebuked the Pharisees."
—Larry Wilson, "That Offends Me!"
[https://www.opc.org/feature.html?feature_id=53]
When Pharisees in the church don't repent, they must be disciplined.
Because legalism is harmful to the body of Christ, is divisive, and threatens the Gospel itself.
A response depends somewhat on who you are in the church.
As a PASTOR:
Teach. If you see legalism, address it head-on from the pulpit.
If it continues, rebuke it (Matt. 18). If there is conscience-binding, adding to the Word of God, then discipline is in order.
It may end in excommunication.
Of course, you can only do this if the church practices formal church membership.
As a MEMBER:
Ask the person to talk.
Talk to your pastor first, for council as *you* confront the person one-on-one.
It helps to know the person.
Have a conversation after the worship service.
Reason from the Scriptures.
If the Pharisee continues, treating the rest of the church as unholy, that's when the elders need to step in and deal with it.
Confronting a LEGALIST PASTOR:
What do you do if the elders of the church are Pharisees?
They require what God does not, they forbid what God has given to be enjoyed.
Worst case scenario: Leave.
Ask a question from the Bible. "This is not sin, how can you ask me not to do it?"
They may accuse you of disrespect just for asking.
If they are totally unapproachable, just leave that church.
If you show up to your meeting to talk, and it's an ambush with other people there, just leave.
Pastors should be approachable. Pastors are responsible to answer with gentleness, and patiently instruct.
Ask for the pastor to do his job—teach you about these extra-biblical policies. If that makes him hostile, turn around and get out.
This will be an emotional roller-coaster, but the principles are simple.
The point is:
Faithfulness to God, or faithfulness to men.
Is God alone going to be Lord over your conscience, or are you going to allow men to lord it over?
READ: "Responding to Pharisees"
http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/responding-to-pharisees/
Jesus also targeted the hypocrisy and their harmful effects in the lives of others.
Pharisees can't live up to God's standards, or their own.
God's law pierces to the heart.
Modern legalists today are no different: an appearance of holiness.
Binding of the conscience beyond the Word of God, taking lordship other believers, is harmful.
The Apostle Paul wrote against it. Jesus publicly argued against them, and called them names—"you brood of vipers."
That's not "nice," but it is Christlike.
For the purpose of correction and instruction, we need to explain our exercise of liberty.
And we must not give in to legalism even for a moment.
WLC 105 Q. What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the first commandment are . . . making men the lords of our faith and conscience. . .
[http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/making-men-lords/]
It's likely going to be the Legalist that is hostile.
You can never win, unless you give in. You'll never be right in their eyes. They want unconditional surrender.
Admonish, confront, and church discipline (Garry Friesen)
"Jesus never backed off from saying or doing things which were right, even though he knew the Pharisees would take offense at them (cf. Matt. 15:1-14). He kept doing what brought his Father glory and advanced his own Kingdom. At first, when the Pharisees questioned him, Jesus simply explained why he did what he did. But when they started trying to turn people away from following him, Jesus began more directly to rebuke them. He also began to warn others about the Pharisees. He told his disciples to "be on guard" (Matt. 16:6) and to "leave them" (Matt. 15:14). Finally, Jesus openly rebuked the Pharisees."
—Larry Wilson, "That Offends Me!"
[https://www.opc.org/feature.html?feature_id=53]
When Pharisees in the church don't repent, they must be disciplined.
Because legalism is harmful to the body of Christ, is divisive, and threatens the Gospel itself.
A response depends somewhat on who you are in the church.
As a PASTOR:
Teach. If you see legalism, address it head-on from the pulpit.
If it continues, rebuke it (Matt. 18). If there is conscience-binding, adding to the Word of God, then discipline is in order.
It may end in excommunication.
Of course, you can only do this if the church practices formal church membership.
As a MEMBER:
Ask the person to talk.
Talk to your pastor first, for council as *you* confront the person one-on-one.
It helps to know the person.
Have a conversation after the worship service.
Reason from the Scriptures.
If the Pharisee continues, treating the rest of the church as unholy, that's when the elders need to step in and deal with it.
Confronting a LEGALIST PASTOR:
What do you do if the elders of the church are Pharisees?
They require what God does not, they forbid what God has given to be enjoyed.
Worst case scenario: Leave.
Ask a question from the Bible. "This is not sin, how can you ask me not to do it?"
They may accuse you of disrespect just for asking.
If they are totally unapproachable, just leave that church.
If you show up to your meeting to talk, and it's an ambush with other people there, just leave.
Pastors should be approachable. Pastors are responsible to answer with gentleness, and patiently instruct.
Ask for the pastor to do his job—teach you about these extra-biblical policies. If that makes him hostile, turn around and get out.
This will be an emotional roller-coaster, but the principles are simple.
The point is:
Faithfulness to God, or faithfulness to men.
Is God alone going to be Lord over your conscience, or are you going to allow men to lord it over?
READ: "Responding to Pharisees"
http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/responding-to-pharisees/
Show Notes:
At the end of this series on Liberty of Conscience, we'll bring the principles into concrete situations.
Once upon a time . . .
If a pastor's wife was truly stumbled, what would that mean?
- weak in biblical knowledge
- weak in conviction
- weak in conscience
- weak in will, moved to imitate
In reality, it was a case of "taking offense." Mere disagreement. A case of legalism.
In using biblical terms in unbiblical ways, it was manipulation.
If you don't break off your relationship, you'll be expelled from the school.
Confrontation by a woman in authority over men.
Lies and false teaching can be believed by anyone, regardless of intelligence and education.
The point: what was done and said was unbiblical.
What about institutions, like schools, that are not churches?
Don't they have the right to their own policies?
Policies can still be sinful.
A "Bible college" is supposed to be a Christian institution.
We are not required to be enrolled in a Christian school.
The abuse of spiritual authority is not the same as a church.
When a school forbids marriage, with the threat of consequences, that is sinful.
It might be within their rules, but it's not right.
The hard question is whether you have allowed people to rule your conscience.
The Bible college was under church authority, and the church acted the same way. The school reflected the local church.
Bible schools are supposed to teach what is in line with God's Word.
Giving a woman authority to forbid marriage between grown adults was in line with the culture.
What authority would these people have to tell you whom to marry?
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and rules through his Word.
For someone to take the place of God and forbid what God calls good is sin, automatically.
That concludes our series on Liberty of Conscience.
BUT, there's always more discussion to be had on this issue.
We are open to questions about specific issues that are adiaphora.
Comment your questions and suggestions!
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
At the end of this series on Liberty of Conscience, we'll bring the principles into concrete situations.
Once upon a time . . .
If a pastor's wife was truly stumbled, what would that mean?
- weak in biblical knowledge
- weak in conviction
- weak in conscience
- weak in will, moved to imitate
In reality, it was a case of "taking offense." Mere disagreement. A case of legalism.
In using biblical terms in unbiblical ways, it was manipulation.
If you don't break off your relationship, you'll be expelled from the school.
Confrontation by a woman in authority over men.
Lies and false teaching can be believed by anyone, regardless of intelligence and education.
The point: what was done and said was unbiblical.
What about institutions, like schools, that are not churches?
Don't they have the right to their own policies?
Policies can still be sinful.
A "Bible college" is supposed to be a Christian institution.
We are not required to be enrolled in a Christian school.
The abuse of spiritual authority is not the same as a church.
When a school forbids marriage, with the threat of consequences, that is sinful.
It might be within their rules, but it's not right.
The hard question is whether you have allowed people to rule your conscience.
The Bible college was under church authority, and the church acted the same way. The school reflected the local church.
Bible schools are supposed to teach what is in line with God's Word.
Giving a woman authority to forbid marriage between grown adults was in line with the culture.
What authority would these people have to tell you whom to marry?
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and rules through his Word.
For someone to take the place of God and forbid what God calls good is sin, automatically.
That concludes our series on Liberty of Conscience.
BUT, there's always more discussion to be had on this issue.
We are open to questions about specific issues that are adiaphora.
Comment your questions and suggestions!
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
A popular teaching: "It's the devil who makes you keep looking back to and dwelling on your past."
But in the Old Testament, you see God often reminding his people of their past.
Philippians 3:12–14
12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
13 Brothers, I do not consider myself as having laid hold of it yet, but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Many people are not counseled well with God's Word, so false gets mixed with true.
It's always good to remind people what God has done for them.
If the "forget your past" was the true understanding, then Paul would have contradicted himself in his own letters! Philippians 3:4–6
You don't ignore the past. But you don't live there either.
Distinguish.
"If I bring it up it will jinx me, or be bad luck."
Negative confession."
It's therapeutic thinking, not Christian thinking.
Be thankful for what God has done for us.
Also a misunderstanding of figurative language: God "forgets" our sins. Does it mean he lost knowledge? No.
Throughout the OT, God reminds his people of his mighty acts in their past. And he will also remind them of their sins, their discipline, and his deliverance of them.
And God commands his people to teach this history to their children! "You must *not* forget!"
Examples: Ebenezer, Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, etc.
This is one way the Christian faith has been "psychologized."
Many pastors are anti-theology, so the people don't get the teaching they need.
You can't be dismissive of all mental issues, like "it's all in your head." The brain is an organ, and God made us physical.
How do we counsel someone who doesn't understand/realize that this is a physical brain issue? Because they are afraid of the mental health profession.
They don't have pastors with discernment.
For a heart problem, you would go to a heart doctor. Why not for the brain?
Ask your network of people, thinking that someone may have a brain-issue, are there any Christian specialists?
We're distinguishing this from dealing with your past.
We're not talking about ignoring, just not dwelling.
But if it's a physical organ problem, be honest about your situation.
You cannot separate the two, because you are a union of body and soul.
Many know this intuitively. Everyone needs to distinguish and recognize both/and. Your physical condition affects your emotional and spiritual state.
Learn to appropriately think about your past.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
A popular teaching: "It's the devil who makes you keep looking back to and dwelling on your past."
But in the Old Testament, you see God often reminding his people of their past.
Philippians 3:12–14
12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
13 Brothers, I do not consider myself as having laid hold of it yet, but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Many people are not counseled well with God's Word, so false gets mixed with true.
It's always good to remind people what God has done for them.
If the "forget your past" was the true understanding, then Paul would have contradicted himself in his own letters! Philippians 3:4–6
You don't ignore the past. But you don't live there either.
Distinguish.
"If I bring it up it will jinx me, or be bad luck."
Negative confession."
It's therapeutic thinking, not Christian thinking.
Be thankful for what God has done for us.
Also a misunderstanding of figurative language: God "forgets" our sins. Does it mean he lost knowledge? No.
Throughout the OT, God reminds his people of his mighty acts in their past. And he will also remind them of their sins, their discipline, and his deliverance of them.
And God commands his people to teach this history to their children! "You must *not* forget!"
Examples: Ebenezer, Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, etc.
This is one way the Christian faith has been "psychologized."
Many pastors are anti-theology, so the people don't get the teaching they need.
You can't be dismissive of all mental issues, like "it's all in your head." The brain is an organ, and God made us physical.
How do we counsel someone who doesn't understand/realize that this is a physical brain issue? Because they are afraid of the mental health profession.
They don't have pastors with discernment.
For a heart problem, you would go to a heart doctor. Why not for the brain?
Ask your network of people, thinking that someone may have a brain-issue, are there any Christian specialists?
We're distinguishing this from dealing with your past.
We're not talking about ignoring, just not dwelling.
But if it's a physical organ problem, be honest about your situation.
You cannot separate the two, because you are a union of body and soul.
Many know this intuitively. Everyone needs to distinguish and recognize both/and. Your physical condition affects your emotional and spiritual state.
Learn to appropriately think about your past.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
Appropriately remembering the past, and how to use it correctly.
As the Bible teaches: be honest.
Everyone has a past, behavior they are rightly ashamed of.
Don't pretend it didn't happen.
But not everyone needs to know. It would simply be inappropriate to share that information.
What might be inappropriate to share with everyone?
Example: a Christian man posting that he won't be doing ministry any longer because of a "moral failure." That's all.
Further information is none of your business.
Right to know and need to know.
The Bible does not require a play-by-play confession.
The personal relationship is a factor.
Example: future spouse, and past behavior resulted in having a disease.
Being honest does not mean every detail. But at times, it will be necessary.
Honesty does not mean telling every person.
James 5:16, Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
It doesn't mean not saying anything, ever. Nor does it mean full-disclosure.
What about employing other experiences, dealing with difficult experiences, without obsessing over it?
An unhealthy thinking and meditating on past bad experiences, in a way that affects you presently.
It begins with the Gospel.
The character of God, being all-knowing, sovereign, allows things to happen.
Trust in God, without the answer to "why?"
We categorize.
Deal with it one category at a time. "God knows."
Start with the characteristics of God. He's all-powerful. He's all knowing.
Interpreting your past experience according to the truth of Scripture, rather than interpreting God by your experience.
When something comes back to you, pray. Confess to him, and trust him for his power.
Believe God's grace is sufficient.
Remember God's purpose is our sanctification, our good, and his glory.
Do you "thank God" for that bad experience?
The Bible says "give thanks in" all circumstances. Not *for,* but in.
1 Thessalonians 5:18, in everything give thanks, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
Evil is not good, and good is not evil—though evil is *used* for good.
Evil does not become good.
Romans 8:28, And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.
Even if you don't understand, trust that God will take care of you.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Appropriately remembering the past, and how to use it correctly.
As the Bible teaches: be honest.
Everyone has a past, behavior they are rightly ashamed of.
Don't pretend it didn't happen.
But not everyone needs to know. It would simply be inappropriate to share that information.
What might be inappropriate to share with everyone?
Example: a Christian man posting that he won't be doing ministry any longer because of a "moral failure." That's all.
Further information is none of your business.
Right to know and need to know.
The Bible does not require a play-by-play confession.
The personal relationship is a factor.
Example: future spouse, and past behavior resulted in having a disease.
Being honest does not mean every detail. But at times, it will be necessary.
Honesty does not mean telling every person.
James 5:16, Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
It doesn't mean not saying anything, ever. Nor does it mean full-disclosure.
What about employing other experiences, dealing with difficult experiences, without obsessing over it?
An unhealthy thinking and meditating on past bad experiences, in a way that affects you presently.
It begins with the Gospel.
The character of God, being all-knowing, sovereign, allows things to happen.
Trust in God, without the answer to "why?"
We categorize.
Deal with it one category at a time. "God knows."
Start with the characteristics of God. He's all-powerful. He's all knowing.
Interpreting your past experience according to the truth of Scripture, rather than interpreting God by your experience.
When something comes back to you, pray. Confess to him, and trust him for his power.
Believe God's grace is sufficient.
Remember God's purpose is our sanctification, our good, and his glory.
Do you "thank God" for that bad experience?
The Bible says "give thanks in" all circumstances. Not *for,* but in.
1 Thessalonians 5:18, in everything give thanks, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
Evil is not good, and good is not evil—though evil is *used* for good.
Evil does not become good.
Romans 8:28, And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.
Even if you don't understand, trust that God will take care of you.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
How to use our past appropriately with other people.
You have to deal with it first.
If you haven't dealt with it biblically, but have become bitter, that will come out when you speak with other people.
Not gossiping, not slandering.
Not everyone needs to learn the hard way. We share our experiences so other people don't have to go through the same experiences.
It's like seeing a trap in the way, and saying "look out."
2 Corinthians 1:3–4 (NET)
3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles so that we may be able to comfort those experiencing any trouble with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.
It's not our experience that is primary, but the comfort of God.
"Show me your scars" garbage.
No one should have to earn the right to be heard. "Pay your dues," "earn your stripes," suffer first before you can talk to me, all that may just be spite.
Some people say you're not worthy to talk to me if you haven't experienced this, or younger.
Rather, we should put our experience in proper place.
It's God's comfort, not our comfort primarily. It's God's comfort we bring.
You cannot minimize a child's hurt just because it's nothing for you. You cannot be selective with suffering.
We are not entitled to know the multiplicity of reasons for our suffering. We need to accept the fact that we aren't going to know.
But in 2 Corinthians 1, we are told one of the purposes: so you can comfort others.
Give people God, give them Scripture.
It hurts when we have to watch other people, because we remember our past.
We have to equip people, so they learn how to protect themselves.
What experiences do we share so that people will not get hurt?
Example: 2 young people want to get married. The pastor's wife believes that they need to hear from God prophetically, before they may get married. So the pastor preaches that you "need a verse," instead of rebuking this unbiblical thinking.
By sharing what we've learned and how we've dealt with it, we can give them a heads' up. *When* it happens to them.
It's emotional. Emotions make thinking harder. Think through it before you suffer through it.
Counsel is different from "do this, do that." You are free to ignore wise advice.
There are many layers that makes the situation very complicated. That's why you take them one at a time.
Making personal experience normative—your individual experience the standard for other people—will ALWAYS lead to abuse.
If a pastor in a church is doing that, it's a personality cult.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
How to use our past appropriately with other people.
You have to deal with it first.
If you haven't dealt with it biblically, but have become bitter, that will come out when you speak with other people.
Not gossiping, not slandering.
Not everyone needs to learn the hard way. We share our experiences so other people don't have to go through the same experiences.
It's like seeing a trap in the way, and saying "look out."
2 Corinthians 1:3–4 (NET)
3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles so that we may be able to comfort those experiencing any trouble with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.
It's not our experience that is primary, but the comfort of God.
"Show me your scars" garbage.
No one should have to earn the right to be heard. "Pay your dues," "earn your stripes," suffer first before you can talk to me, all that may just be spite.
Some people say you're not worthy to talk to me if you haven't experienced this, or younger.
Rather, we should put our experience in proper place.
It's God's comfort, not our comfort primarily. It's God's comfort we bring.
You cannot minimize a child's hurt just because it's nothing for you. You cannot be selective with suffering.
We are not entitled to know the multiplicity of reasons for our suffering. We need to accept the fact that we aren't going to know.
But in 2 Corinthians 1, we are told one of the purposes: so you can comfort others.
Give people God, give them Scripture.
It hurts when we have to watch other people, because we remember our past.
We have to equip people, so they learn how to protect themselves.
What experiences do we share so that people will not get hurt?
Example: 2 young people want to get married. The pastor's wife believes that they need to hear from God prophetically, before they may get married. So the pastor preaches that you "need a verse," instead of rebuking this unbiblical thinking.
By sharing what we've learned and how we've dealt with it, we can give them a heads' up. *When* it happens to them.
It's emotional. Emotions make thinking harder. Think through it before you suffer through it.
Counsel is different from "do this, do that." You are free to ignore wise advice.
There are many layers that makes the situation very complicated. That's why you take them one at a time.
Making personal experience normative—your individual experience the standard for other people—will ALWAYS lead to abuse.
If a pastor in a church is doing that, it's a personality cult.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS