Show Notes:
Stronger brothers and "personal convictions."
"Mature Christians should not have personal convictions."
Why say that?
"Personal convictions" are had by weaker believers, and you cannot be mature if you are weak in knowledge.
Also: "Mature Christians should never be stumbled."
Stronger Christians should never be stumbled by another's exercise of Christian liberty.
Because they have the accurate understanding that all things are lawful.
Using biblical terms in biblical ways. Use the terms God uses. And when using them differently than the Bible, clarify what you mean.
To say that stronger Christians, even mature Christians, may have personal convictions (in the sense of convictions that they do have) is not the biblical use.
Pastors cannot have personal convictions. They should be strong in knowledge, conviction, will, and conscience, and growing in love.
Do stronger brothers have "differing opinions"?
Personal Convictions: scruples of weak Christians (Rom. 14:22)
Stronger brothers know that nothing is unclean in itself. Adiaphora will not make them guilty. Likewise, they won't be offended by other strong Christians using their liberty. And they cannot be persuaded to violate their conscience. They don't condemn themselves in what they approve (Rom. 14:22).
Are all stronger brothers of the same opinion—meaning how they use their liberty?
Common misunderstanding: all stronger brothers will all engage in the same activities and never say "no" to anything.
Differing opinions: I approve of this, you approve of that.
Neither is sin. We are in the area of liberty, not sin.
Examples of OPINIONS:
- public education
- Netflix subscription
- smoking
- movie ratings
- Bible translations
- diet
- liquor
- clothing
You should have a biblical rationale for your opinions; not arbitrary.
"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up."
—C.S. Lewis
Do stronger brothers "misplaced scruples"? No. There is no guilt over things that are not sinful.
Could a weaker brother and stronger brother share the same scruple?
Yes, because it's an opinion.
Example: refraining from R-rated movies. Both could refrain, but for different reasons.
Weak: it's sin for him.
Strong: it's lawful, but not profitable for him. A differing stronger brother will not persuade him.
In regard to scruples, the difference between strong and weak believers is:
it moves from sin for them to not profitable.
As a weaker brother becomes a stronger brother, he may still refrain from the same indifferent thing, but his reason will have changed.
Strong Christians will have differing opinions, and each must be fully convinced in their own mind.
Fully convinced in *your own* mind.
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Stronger brothers and "personal convictions."
"Mature Christians should not have personal convictions."
Why say that?
"Personal convictions" are had by weaker believers, and you cannot be mature if you are weak in knowledge.
Also: "Mature Christians should never be stumbled."
Stronger Christians should never be stumbled by another's exercise of Christian liberty.
Because they have the accurate understanding that all things are lawful.
Using biblical terms in biblical ways. Use the terms God uses. And when using them differently than the Bible, clarify what you mean.
To say that stronger Christians, even mature Christians, may have personal convictions (in the sense of convictions that they do have) is not the biblical use.
Pastors cannot have personal convictions. They should be strong in knowledge, conviction, will, and conscience, and growing in love.
Do stronger brothers have "differing opinions"?
Personal Convictions: scruples of weak Christians (Rom. 14:22)
Stronger brothers know that nothing is unclean in itself. Adiaphora will not make them guilty. Likewise, they won't be offended by other strong Christians using their liberty. And they cannot be persuaded to violate their conscience. They don't condemn themselves in what they approve (Rom. 14:22).
Are all stronger brothers of the same opinion—meaning how they use their liberty?
Common misunderstanding: all stronger brothers will all engage in the same activities and never say "no" to anything.
Differing opinions: I approve of this, you approve of that.
Neither is sin. We are in the area of liberty, not sin.
Examples of OPINIONS:
- public education
- Netflix subscription
- smoking
- movie ratings
- Bible translations
- diet
- liquor
- clothing
You should have a biblical rationale for your opinions; not arbitrary.
"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up."
—C.S. Lewis
Do stronger brothers "misplaced scruples"? No. There is no guilt over things that are not sinful.
Could a weaker brother and stronger brother share the same scruple?
Yes, because it's an opinion.
Example: refraining from R-rated movies. Both could refrain, but for different reasons.
Weak: it's sin for him.
Strong: it's lawful, but not profitable for him. A differing stronger brother will not persuade him.
In regard to scruples, the difference between strong and weak believers is:
it moves from sin for them to not profitable.
As a weaker brother becomes a stronger brother, he may still refrain from the same indifferent thing, but his reason will have changed.
Strong Christians will have differing opinions, and each must be fully convinced in their own mind.
Fully convinced in *your own* mind.
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
Now we define the terms.
ADIAPHORA
"Things indifferent."
Morally/ethically indifferent.
Those things "neutral"—morally speaking.
Any created thing can and should be used for God's glory. However, it can also be abused and used apart from God's glory. As God intended, or for sinful purposes.
The sin doesn't come from the thing itself—not intrinsically good or bad.
Example: alcohol. Alcohol is not sinful.
But a sinner can use it to be drunk, which is sin.
Jesus used wine in the Lord's Supper, a righteous use.
We cannot make adiaphora a test of holiness.
1 Timothy 4:1–8
"who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be shared in with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
Many people use their past as a weapon—many justify banning adiaphora based on their bad experiences.
"We are free to use and enjoy things as long as they do not rule our lives. Many good things can be abused, and it is the abuse that is the sin, not the use. Our tendency is to think that the only proper corrective to an abuse is complete disuse. We start posting rules and regulations governing all kinds of things that God allows His people to use in the liberty of conscience, and we try to take away their liberty in order to protect them from falling into abuses."
—R.C. Sproul, *Truths We Confess*
CONSCIENCE
It's immaterial. Part of the soul, which is the spirit or heart.
Peaple sear their conscience when they put up rules.
Romans 1–2, God appeals to the conscience. God gave us a conscience.
The conscience has to do with how you live your life, based on what God says or something else.
Your conscience is at work when you feel justified or guilty in your actions. Our sense of what is right or wrong. But the conscience is not infallible.
"To understand this statement, we must define the word conscience. The conscience has to do with our moral sense, our mental awareness of right and wrong. . . Our conscience can lie to us. Our conscience can excuse what it ought to accuse, and approve of what it ought to disapprove of. That is one reason why the work of the Holy Spirit is so important in the Christian’s life. The Spirit overrules the corruption of the human conscience and convinces us that our sin is sin."
—R.C. Sproul, *Truths We Confess*
1 Corinthians 4:4, "For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted. But the one who examines me is the Lord."
The conscience is the subjective ethical sense. The objective moral standard is God's Law. The trick is to get the two to coincide.
Legalistic contexts, where opinions determine right and wrong, people feel guilty when they have not sinned.
Weaker brothers act against their conscience, and do what they believe to be sin—which is sin.
If we want a conscience more in sync with God's Word, then we need to live a life that pleases God. Our conscience won't accuse others of sin, when they have not sinned.
As far as obedience, that's why God gives us the Spirit (Gal. 3:3)
Romans 12:1–2, God wants us transformed by the renewing of our mind. Then our conscience will be renewed.
Then you can become a better pastor, better pastor's wife, better member, better Christian.
You'll know it's not your right or duty to tell people what to do, that the Bible doesn't say anything about.
Then like Paul, you can say: "My conscience is clear; however, it's God who examines me, and God is the ultimate judge of my conscience."
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Now we define the terms.
ADIAPHORA
"Things indifferent."
Morally/ethically indifferent.
Those things "neutral"—morally speaking.
Any created thing can and should be used for God's glory. However, it can also be abused and used apart from God's glory. As God intended, or for sinful purposes.
The sin doesn't come from the thing itself—not intrinsically good or bad.
Example: alcohol. Alcohol is not sinful.
But a sinner can use it to be drunk, which is sin.
Jesus used wine in the Lord's Supper, a righteous use.
We cannot make adiaphora a test of holiness.
1 Timothy 4:1–8
"who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be shared in with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
Many people use their past as a weapon—many justify banning adiaphora based on their bad experiences.
"We are free to use and enjoy things as long as they do not rule our lives. Many good things can be abused, and it is the abuse that is the sin, not the use. Our tendency is to think that the only proper corrective to an abuse is complete disuse. We start posting rules and regulations governing all kinds of things that God allows His people to use in the liberty of conscience, and we try to take away their liberty in order to protect them from falling into abuses."
—R.C. Sproul, *Truths We Confess*
CONSCIENCE
It's immaterial. Part of the soul, which is the spirit or heart.
Peaple sear their conscience when they put up rules.
Romans 1–2, God appeals to the conscience. God gave us a conscience.
The conscience has to do with how you live your life, based on what God says or something else.
Your conscience is at work when you feel justified or guilty in your actions. Our sense of what is right or wrong. But the conscience is not infallible.
"To understand this statement, we must define the word conscience. The conscience has to do with our moral sense, our mental awareness of right and wrong. . . Our conscience can lie to us. Our conscience can excuse what it ought to accuse, and approve of what it ought to disapprove of. That is one reason why the work of the Holy Spirit is so important in the Christian’s life. The Spirit overrules the corruption of the human conscience and convinces us that our sin is sin."
—R.C. Sproul, *Truths We Confess*
1 Corinthians 4:4, "For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted. But the one who examines me is the Lord."
The conscience is the subjective ethical sense. The objective moral standard is God's Law. The trick is to get the two to coincide.
Legalistic contexts, where opinions determine right and wrong, people feel guilty when they have not sinned.
Weaker brothers act against their conscience, and do what they believe to be sin—which is sin.
If we want a conscience more in sync with God's Word, then we need to live a life that pleases God. Our conscience won't accuse others of sin, when they have not sinned.
As far as obedience, that's why God gives us the Spirit (Gal. 3:3)
Romans 12:1–2, God wants us transformed by the renewing of our mind. Then our conscience will be renewed.
Then you can become a better pastor, better pastor's wife, better member, better Christian.
You'll know it's not your right or duty to tell people what to do, that the Bible doesn't say anything about.
Then like Paul, you can say: "My conscience is clear; however, it's God who examines me, and God is the ultimate judge of my conscience."
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
Defining "Liberty of Conscience"
Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, 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. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
No human being or institution has authority over your conscience.
God alone does, and rules it through his Word.
The conscience is free from doctrines (what to believe) and commandments that are contrary to the Word—and also, beside it, as in additional to it—in matters of faith and worship.
To believe in extra doctrines or submit to extra commandments, we betray true liberty of conscience.
The opposite of liberty is slavery.
Q. 105. What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?
A. . . making men the lords of our faith and conscience.
"Making Men Lords" (http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/making-men-lords/)
This is in direct opposition to Roman Catholicism, which requires implicit faith. This doctrine is central to the Protestant Reformation.
The Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy for prudence. But refused to have Titus circumcised, because false brothers believed it was required for salvation.
Galatians 2:3–5
But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
But this was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.
But we did not yield in subjection to them for even a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
John Gerstner:
"I will not be obedient to you, the denomination, to Caesar, but only to my Lord Jesus."
"If we [denomination] ever put our doctrines or practices on the same level as Scripture, it must be refused."
But won't people go crazy you tell them they are free?
There is a Lord and a Law. God is Lord, and he rules the conscience by the Word.
Denominations and local churches have tried to violate liberty of conscience.
Colossians 2:20–23
“Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch”
The forbidding of marriage is a popular one, in our context.
1 Timothy 4:1–3
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by the hypocrisy of liars, who have been seared in their own conscience, who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be shared in with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
No church, no authority can forbid what God allows. Marriage, foods, alcohol consumption. It violates liberty of conscience and God's Lordship over us.
They attempt to put themselves on God's throne and be lord over your conscience.
WCF 20.2: "the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."
The Church of Rome requires implicit faith to everything the church teaches—and anything they might require in the future.
This continuing revelation is in common with any cult that denies the closed Canon of Scripture.
Our job is not to change your mind, but to tell you the truth. You have a conscience. Look into the Word and let God change your mind.
"The Holy Spirit is not enough." The Word of God is not sufficient. That's the attitude of every legalist.
If God's Word is the only rule for faith and life, then it is enough. God gave us a Bible that doesn't need to be added to.
Legalists think the Bible and the Holy Spirit sanctifying you is not enough—you need more rules.
The church has no authority to create doctrines or practices. It can only enforce what God says.
Within liberty, it's your choice. You can partake, or not partake. It's up to you.
A subtle attack on liberty: "Do you *have* to do that?"
Defining "Liberty of Conscience"
Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, 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. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
No human being or institution has authority over your conscience.
God alone does, and rules it through his Word.
The conscience is free from doctrines (what to believe) and commandments that are contrary to the Word—and also, beside it, as in additional to it—in matters of faith and worship.
To believe in extra doctrines or submit to extra commandments, we betray true liberty of conscience.
The opposite of liberty is slavery.
Q. 105. What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?
A. . . making men the lords of our faith and conscience.
"Making Men Lords" (http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/making-men-lords/)
This is in direct opposition to Roman Catholicism, which requires implicit faith. This doctrine is central to the Protestant Reformation.
The Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy for prudence. But refused to have Titus circumcised, because false brothers believed it was required for salvation.
Galatians 2:3–5
But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
But this was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.
But we did not yield in subjection to them for even a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
John Gerstner:
"I will not be obedient to you, the denomination, to Caesar, but only to my Lord Jesus."
"If we [denomination] ever put our doctrines or practices on the same level as Scripture, it must be refused."
But won't people go crazy you tell them they are free?
There is a Lord and a Law. God is Lord, and he rules the conscience by the Word.
Denominations and local churches have tried to violate liberty of conscience.
Colossians 2:20–23
“Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch”
The forbidding of marriage is a popular one, in our context.
1 Timothy 4:1–3
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by the hypocrisy of liars, who have been seared in their own conscience, who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be shared in with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
No church, no authority can forbid what God allows. Marriage, foods, alcohol consumption. It violates liberty of conscience and God's Lordship over us.
They attempt to put themselves on God's throne and be lord over your conscience.
WCF 20.2: "the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."
The Church of Rome requires implicit faith to everything the church teaches—and anything they might require in the future.
This continuing revelation is in common with any cult that denies the closed Canon of Scripture.
Our job is not to change your mind, but to tell you the truth. You have a conscience. Look into the Word and let God change your mind.
"The Holy Spirit is not enough." The Word of God is not sufficient. That's the attitude of every legalist.
If God's Word is the only rule for faith and life, then it is enough. God gave us a Bible that doesn't need to be added to.
Legalists think the Bible and the Holy Spirit sanctifying you is not enough—you need more rules.
The church has no authority to create doctrines or practices. It can only enforce what God says.
Within liberty, it's your choice. You can partake, or not partake. It's up to you.
A subtle attack on liberty: "Do you *have* to do that?"
Answer: I don't *have* to do anything. I don't need a special reason to do what is allowed, what I am free to do.
Freedom—you may, or may not. You don't have to defend it.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Freedom—you may, or may not. You don't have to defend it.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
"Legalism"
There is more than one kind of legalism.
1. Adding works (law keeping) to faith for justification.
2. Adding to God's Law—requiring or forbidding things that God does not.
The second sense is the *legalism* we're talking about—adding to the Law of God.
A clear-case example: the Amish
"In any case, the entire system of Amish religion is dedicated to a kind of separatism that sees the use of modern conveniences such as electricity and gasoline operated engines as a descent into worldliness. The lifestyle of the Amish is driven in large measure by an ethical commitment that regards such separation as necessary for spiritual development."
—R.C. Sproul, "When to Stop, When to Go, When to Slow Down"
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/when-stop-when-go-when-slow-down/
Viewing things indifferent as sinful.
Traditions have been elevated to the level of divine-law. That is legalism.
Again, Sproul: "The problem with this particular approach to ethics is that these elements, on which the Bible is silent, become ethical matters of the highest consideration for some Christians. In a word, the adiaphora become elevated to the status of law, and people’s consciences become bound where God has left them free. Here a form of legalism emerges that is on a collision course with the biblical principal of Christian liberty. Even more important is that a substitute morality replaces the true ethical criteria that the Bible prescribes for godly people."
"Binding of the conscience" is in contrast to liberty of conscience. Or slavery of the conscience.
The opposite of freedom in Christ Jesus is to be enslaved (Gal. 2:4)
This brand of legalism is common, especially among non-denominational churches and Bible colleges.
"If you continue your relationship, we will expel you from the school."
Excusing legalism as "culture."
If you don't submit, even if you are a pastor, they will ignore you or church split. That's why many give up their freedom in Christ, allow themselves to be bound. Pastors who give in are hirelings.
They will invoke the almighty "stumbling block," even though no one is being influenced to sin. You just crossed their cultural preferences.
If God doesn't forbid it, nobody can forbid it. It's an opinion.
Each person must be fully convinced in their own mind.
It's not our business and we're not God.
Legalists are always hypocritical. They make loopholes for themselves.
Once you give one centimeter to legalism, obey just one rule added to Scripture, the floodgates are open.
Logically, there's nowhere to draw the line.
Scripture is the line, God's Law is the line. Once you cross it by adding to it once, you can add to it a 1,000,000 times. You can't say stop, because you let it begin.
Legalists are basically abusers, because they pretend to be lord of your conscience. They play God with you.
And you who submit to them are sinning, because you let a human being be your Lord.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
"Legalism"
There is more than one kind of legalism.
1. Adding works (law keeping) to faith for justification.
2. Adding to God's Law—requiring or forbidding things that God does not.
The second sense is the *legalism* we're talking about—adding to the Law of God.
A clear-case example: the Amish
"In any case, the entire system of Amish religion is dedicated to a kind of separatism that sees the use of modern conveniences such as electricity and gasoline operated engines as a descent into worldliness. The lifestyle of the Amish is driven in large measure by an ethical commitment that regards such separation as necessary for spiritual development."
—R.C. Sproul, "When to Stop, When to Go, When to Slow Down"
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/when-stop-when-go-when-slow-down/
Viewing things indifferent as sinful.
Traditions have been elevated to the level of divine-law. That is legalism.
Again, Sproul: "The problem with this particular approach to ethics is that these elements, on which the Bible is silent, become ethical matters of the highest consideration for some Christians. In a word, the adiaphora become elevated to the status of law, and people’s consciences become bound where God has left them free. Here a form of legalism emerges that is on a collision course with the biblical principal of Christian liberty. Even more important is that a substitute morality replaces the true ethical criteria that the Bible prescribes for godly people."
"Binding of the conscience" is in contrast to liberty of conscience. Or slavery of the conscience.
The opposite of freedom in Christ Jesus is to be enslaved (Gal. 2:4)
This brand of legalism is common, especially among non-denominational churches and Bible colleges.
"If you continue your relationship, we will expel you from the school."
Excusing legalism as "culture."
If you don't submit, even if you are a pastor, they will ignore you or church split. That's why many give up their freedom in Christ, allow themselves to be bound. Pastors who give in are hirelings.
They will invoke the almighty "stumbling block," even though no one is being influenced to sin. You just crossed their cultural preferences.
If God doesn't forbid it, nobody can forbid it. It's an opinion.
Each person must be fully convinced in their own mind.
It's not our business and we're not God.
Legalists are always hypocritical. They make loopholes for themselves.
Once you give one centimeter to legalism, obey just one rule added to Scripture, the floodgates are open.
Logically, there's nowhere to draw the line.
Scripture is the line, God's Law is the line. Once you cross it by adding to it once, you can add to it a 1,000,000 times. You can't say stop, because you let it begin.
Legalists are basically abusers, because they pretend to be lord of your conscience. They play God with you.
And you who submit to them are sinning, because you let a human being be your Lord.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
OPINION
"Personal conviction," or "personal opinion."
Rom. 14:22, The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God.
"Scruple" (noun)
1: an ethical consideration or principle that inhibits action
2: the quality or state of being scrupulous
3: mental reservation
[Merriam-Webster]
A scruple, a reservation, is not right/wrong, good/bad on its own. You can have an opinion that aligns with Scripture or not.
Scruples can be founded on Scripture, or be *misplaced* scruples.
Rom. 14:1, disputable matter, opinion.
v. 5, be fully convinced
Personal conviction is misleading.
Keeping your conviction between you and God is for the stronger brother.
The weaker brother will think stronger brother's opinion is wrong.
This is the area of wisdom, not sin or not sin.
The Christian should never be careless or thoughtless—he should operate on the general principles of the Word.
The term "personal conviction" has been weaponized. It's a conversation-stopper. When you don't want to discuss or have a Bible study over a disagreement, you shut it down by pleading "personal conviction."
The response: if it's personal, don't make anyone else live by it.
Stronger brothers understand that.
STUMBLING-BLOCK
What does it mean to STUMBLE?
2 Options:
1. To *give* offense, actively stumble another.
2. To *take* offense, when none was given.
*Decision Making and the Will of God* by Garry Friesen.
The Pharisees stumbled over Jesus—they took offense at him, when none was given. And that's sin. Jesus didn't sin. The Pharisees sinned.
What we (and Paul) are talking about in the area of liberty of conscience is the *giving* of offense.
Responsibility is placed on the stronger brother: do not *cause* your brother to stumble, by influencing them to act against their conscience.
Rom. 14:15, For if because of food your brother is grieved, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
Active, from stronger brothers to weaker brothers, in exercising Christian freedom causing the weaker to act against their conscience.
A stumbling-block is not just anything that could possibly offend anyone.
To be stumbled is not just to disagree, be offended, or angry.
"I'm stumbled by that!"
Question: like how the Pharisees were stumbled by Jesus?
Or did I, by my activity, lead you to imitate me by doing what you believed to be wrong?
Like the Pharisees, people who are "stumbled" may be unbelievers.
"STUMBLING BLOCK: an action taken by a stronger brother that, though it would ordinarily qualify as a permissible act of freedom, influences a weaker brother to sin against his conscience."
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (pp. 401-402). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The act itself was not sinful. It's the disregard for the weakness of the weaker brother.
When accused of stumbling others, it had better be in this sense. If not, maybe the person just took offense or disagrees.
Have you ever seen a true stumbling-block, according to Paul's definition?
When you don't start with the definition that the Bible teaches, when you don't speak or think according to the principles of God's word—instead you think and behave according to the elemental principles of this world—but we use the Bible, and biblical terms in biblical ways, you're going to get offended.
That's how malnourished you are, biblically. You'll get angry and feel attacked.
Like the Pharisees with Jesus.
You cannot out-argue God.
Next time you post a picture of your bacon, or your alcoholic beverage, or a tiny tattoo, or what you've been listening to, and someone rebukes you—you're stumbling people, you've stumbled me, that's a stumbling-block—you'll ask this:
"Oh, so I caused you to..." eat bacon also, or drink what I drink, or get a tattoo, or listen to what I listen to. "My action influenced you to do the same, against your conscience?"
OPINION
"Personal conviction," or "personal opinion."
Rom. 14:22, The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God.
"Scruple" (noun)
1: an ethical consideration or principle that inhibits action
2: the quality or state of being scrupulous
3: mental reservation
[Merriam-Webster]
A scruple, a reservation, is not right/wrong, good/bad on its own. You can have an opinion that aligns with Scripture or not.
Scruples can be founded on Scripture, or be *misplaced* scruples.
Rom. 14:1, disputable matter, opinion.
v. 5, be fully convinced
Personal conviction is misleading.
Keeping your conviction between you and God is for the stronger brother.
The weaker brother will think stronger brother's opinion is wrong.
This is the area of wisdom, not sin or not sin.
The Christian should never be careless or thoughtless—he should operate on the general principles of the Word.
The term "personal conviction" has been weaponized. It's a conversation-stopper. When you don't want to discuss or have a Bible study over a disagreement, you shut it down by pleading "personal conviction."
The response: if it's personal, don't make anyone else live by it.
Stronger brothers understand that.
STUMBLING-BLOCK
What does it mean to STUMBLE?
2 Options:
1. To *give* offense, actively stumble another.
2. To *take* offense, when none was given.
*Decision Making and the Will of God* by Garry Friesen.
The Pharisees stumbled over Jesus—they took offense at him, when none was given. And that's sin. Jesus didn't sin. The Pharisees sinned.
What we (and Paul) are talking about in the area of liberty of conscience is the *giving* of offense.
Responsibility is placed on the stronger brother: do not *cause* your brother to stumble, by influencing them to act against their conscience.
Rom. 14:15, For if because of food your brother is grieved, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
Active, from stronger brothers to weaker brothers, in exercising Christian freedom causing the weaker to act against their conscience.
A stumbling-block is not just anything that could possibly offend anyone.
To be stumbled is not just to disagree, be offended, or angry.
"I'm stumbled by that!"
Question: like how the Pharisees were stumbled by Jesus?
Or did I, by my activity, lead you to imitate me by doing what you believed to be wrong?
Like the Pharisees, people who are "stumbled" may be unbelievers.
"STUMBLING BLOCK: an action taken by a stronger brother that, though it would ordinarily qualify as a permissible act of freedom, influences a weaker brother to sin against his conscience."
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (pp. 401-402). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The act itself was not sinful. It's the disregard for the weakness of the weaker brother.
When accused of stumbling others, it had better be in this sense. If not, maybe the person just took offense or disagrees.
Have you ever seen a true stumbling-block, according to Paul's definition?
When you don't start with the definition that the Bible teaches, when you don't speak or think according to the principles of God's word—instead you think and behave according to the elemental principles of this world—but we use the Bible, and biblical terms in biblical ways, you're going to get offended.
That's how malnourished you are, biblically. You'll get angry and feel attacked.
Like the Pharisees with Jesus.
You cannot out-argue God.
Next time you post a picture of your bacon, or your alcoholic beverage, or a tiny tattoo, or what you've been listening to, and someone rebukes you—you're stumbling people, you've stumbled me, that's a stumbling-block—you'll ask this:
"Oh, so I caused you to..." eat bacon also, or drink what I drink, or get a tattoo, or listen to what I listen to. "My action influenced you to do the same, against your conscience?"
99% of the time, that's not what they meant. They merely disagree, don't like it, believe what you did was sin. But they were not influenced to do that thing.
So guess what? You did nothing wrong.
They took offense when none was given.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
So guess what? You did nothing wrong.
They took offense when none was given.
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
Show Notes:
We finally come to the characters, the profiles in Liberty of Conscience:
1. Weaker Brother
2. Stronger Brother
3. Pharisee
As with the other terms, we need the Bible's definition.
You need to know who you are talking to.
Who is the WEAKER BROTHER?
What are the essential marks of the weaker brother, according to Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8?
The weaker brother is the one who gets stumbled. He is weak in such a way as to act against his conscience, and do that which he believes to be sinful.
Garry Friesen assembled the characteristics of the weaker brother into a concise definition.
The 4 ways of weakness:
1. Weak in conviction/faith (Rom. 14:1, 23). He's not fully convinced in his own mind, but condemns himself.
2. Weak in biblical knowledge; doesn't know the biblical truth (1 Cor. 8:7). He doesn't know that all things are lawful, and nothing is unclean of itself (Rom. 14:14, 20). He doesn't know the Bible.
3. Weak in conscience (Rom. 14:14–15, 22). He's overly sensitive—not calibrated to the Word of God (1 Cor. 8:7). He feels guilty over actions that are not sinful.
4. Weak in will (1 Cor. 8:10, 13). Though he thinks the action is sinful, he will imitate a stronger brother and act against his conscience.
When accused of "stumbling" someone, was there the weakness of will, where the supposedly stumbled person was influenced to do what you did, and act against their conscience?
Because that's a weaker brother, biblically defined.
He is not just any new or immature believer. He is not any Christian who disagrees with me on some issue. Neither is he simply a brother who disagrees with me and gets upset because he thinks I am wrong. Such people may have weaknesses, but they do not fit Paul’s qualifications for “weaker brothers.”
A weaker brother (or sister) is a Christian who, because of the weakness of his faith, knowledge, conscience, and will, can be influenced to sin against his conscience by the example of a differing stronger brother.
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (p. 398). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Have you ever encountered a genuine *weaker* Christian?
Perhaps not.
It's because of the weakness of will that Paul tells stronger brothers to restrain themselves in exercising freedom. The weaker brother will follow their example.
Someone who is just offended and stubborn is not a weaker brother—he cannot be influenced to act. There's no chance of destroying someone like that.
The influence is always in one direction: from stronger to weaker.
How many pastors are in fact weak, and need to be cared for by stronger brothers?
Or, are they Pharisees?
When you are accused of stumbling people, ask:
"Were you influenced to do what I did?"
"And did you feel guilty about it?"
"And do you not know that all things are lawful?"
Ask those diagnostic questions to identify a real weaker brother.
Pastors should be strong, not weak. They should not be weak in knowledge, because they are teachers of others.
More than likely, they are just being manipulative. They have weakness, but are not weaker brothers—because they cannot be influenced to act against their unbiblical ethic.
FURTHER STUDY:
WHO IS THE WEAKER BROTHER?
http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/weaker-brother/
Garry Friesen, *Decision Making and the Will of God* Ch. 24, "Weaker Brothers, Pharisees, and Servants" (FREE) http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/gfriesen.htm
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS
We finally come to the characters, the profiles in Liberty of Conscience:
1. Weaker Brother
2. Stronger Brother
3. Pharisee
As with the other terms, we need the Bible's definition.
You need to know who you are talking to.
Who is the WEAKER BROTHER?
What are the essential marks of the weaker brother, according to Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8?
The weaker brother is the one who gets stumbled. He is weak in such a way as to act against his conscience, and do that which he believes to be sinful.
Garry Friesen assembled the characteristics of the weaker brother into a concise definition.
The 4 ways of weakness:
1. Weak in conviction/faith (Rom. 14:1, 23). He's not fully convinced in his own mind, but condemns himself.
2. Weak in biblical knowledge; doesn't know the biblical truth (1 Cor. 8:7). He doesn't know that all things are lawful, and nothing is unclean of itself (Rom. 14:14, 20). He doesn't know the Bible.
3. Weak in conscience (Rom. 14:14–15, 22). He's overly sensitive—not calibrated to the Word of God (1 Cor. 8:7). He feels guilty over actions that are not sinful.
4. Weak in will (1 Cor. 8:10, 13). Though he thinks the action is sinful, he will imitate a stronger brother and act against his conscience.
When accused of "stumbling" someone, was there the weakness of will, where the supposedly stumbled person was influenced to do what you did, and act against their conscience?
Because that's a weaker brother, biblically defined.
He is not just any new or immature believer. He is not any Christian who disagrees with me on some issue. Neither is he simply a brother who disagrees with me and gets upset because he thinks I am wrong. Such people may have weaknesses, but they do not fit Paul’s qualifications for “weaker brothers.”
A weaker brother (or sister) is a Christian who, because of the weakness of his faith, knowledge, conscience, and will, can be influenced to sin against his conscience by the example of a differing stronger brother.
—Friesen, Garry; Maxson, J. Robin. *Decision Making and the Will of God* (p. 398). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Have you ever encountered a genuine *weaker* Christian?
Perhaps not.
It's because of the weakness of will that Paul tells stronger brothers to restrain themselves in exercising freedom. The weaker brother will follow their example.
Someone who is just offended and stubborn is not a weaker brother—he cannot be influenced to act. There's no chance of destroying someone like that.
The influence is always in one direction: from stronger to weaker.
How many pastors are in fact weak, and need to be cared for by stronger brothers?
Or, are they Pharisees?
When you are accused of stumbling people, ask:
"Were you influenced to do what I did?"
"And did you feel guilty about it?"
"And do you not know that all things are lawful?"
Ask those diagnostic questions to identify a real weaker brother.
Pastors should be strong, not weak. They should not be weak in knowledge, because they are teachers of others.
More than likely, they are just being manipulative. They have weakness, but are not weaker brothers—because they cannot be influenced to act against their unbiblical ethic.
FURTHER STUDY:
WHO IS THE WEAKER BROTHER?
http://www.discipleshipphilippines.org/weaker-brother/
Garry Friesen, *Decision Making and the Will of God* Ch. 24, "Weaker Brothers, Pharisees, and Servants" (FREE) http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/gfriesen.htm
Please FOLLOW this channel and LIKE / SHARE / REPOST
COMMENT / DISCUSS