Grace isn’t understood by the graceless
This is just fantastic. Read the whole thing, but here’s a sampling.
The true gospel will always be confused with licentiousness.
….
Listen to how Martyn Lloyd-Jones said it, “The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean…that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching.â€Do you hear what Lloyd-Jones is saying? If someone misinterprets your message to incite licentiousness, that’s a sign that you are preaching it rightly, because they did the same thing to Paul. So when someone accuses me of antinomianism, I rejoice! When someone says that I’m preaching just too much grace and that the eternal life I offer in Jesus’ name is just a little too free, I rejoice! If some of you are frustrated at this point in our series through Romans and are thinking, “Man, if it’s all really that certain, if I’m really that secure in the grace of God, then it seems like it doesn’t matter what I do! What do I do? Tell me what to do!†If that’s the question you’re asking, then I’ve done my job well. I’ve faithfully exposited the gospel of God as it was entrusted to Paul and recorded in the book of Romans. For that is exactly the question Paul’s hearers asked him at this point when he proclaimed the gospel of God.
Amen.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
No one can every completely define grace without appearing to overlook and give license to sin. Even Paul had to pause and say “Should we sin that grace may abound?”.
If you do not make the world wonder if you are giving place to sin you are not preaching grace.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Beautiful! This came from a reformed blog eh? I went there and read the whole thing. How many times has this site been accused of antinomianism? Giving a licsense to sin? Swearing! Drinking! Funny out of tune singing! Damn you people damn you, you are using grace to “sin”!!!!
Heh, this was a good article. Thnks for posting it.
Joe
December 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Let us remember that the Scriptures exhort us not to use our freedom/grace for uncleaness.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Was that a stab at me Rick? I didn’t mean to offend anyone with “damn”, I was trying to make a point. I’m sorry if I offended. I don’t believe grace is a licsense to sin, or act in an unclean way. No worries.
Joe
December 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
That was not aimed at anyone. I just wanted to add some perspective. I consider Bible words as class C misdemeanors, all the rest are felonies. But really all are just verbal laziness.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Newbigin said that when a culture is obsessed with moralistic issues it’s a sure sign it has lost the gospel
December 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I was using “damn” in the literal sense, like “damn to hell”. Not as an interjection in the place of another word. Not that I have a problem with the word “damn” being used that way anyways.
I should have put it this way
How many times has this site been accused of antinomianism?
“[You are] Giving a licsense to sin! Swearing! Drinking! Funny out of tune singing! Damn you people damn you [to hell], you are using grace to “sinâ€!!!!”
I hope that clears up my meaning. I wasn’t “swearing” for ‘fun’. I hope I didn’t come across that way.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
This is a great reminder, that fleshy, worldly desire to earn it, buy it, deserve it, set a highscore for it, lord it over others has no place in the those that claim to follow Christ.
We should be able to present grace without backtracking. It’s a free gift of God…sort of. You don’t have to do anything to earn it except do _____ to earn it. If it’s free, if it’s not something we earn, let’s preach that boldly. God’s grace is because of God’s actions, His sacrifices and His choices, no hoops required to accept that as truth.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Kevin I,
Amen brother.
I wonder sometimes if we can even call what the watchdoggies call grace, grace. It seems that what they call grace is just big enough to cover their sins and not one sin more.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
*sticks head out of foxhole*
Is it safe?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Yeah it’s safe. This is probably one of the ’safer’ conversations going on right now. I don’t think anyone is in disagreement on this one yet lol.
Joe
December 5th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
“Let us remember that the Scriptures exhort us not to use our freedom/grace for uncleaness.”
You guys better listenj to Rick. He is the only one with any kind of conscience here.
Paul was accused of licentiousness, while not being licentious at all. The same thing goes for the Lord.
Yet both of them laid out “ground rules” for the walk.
So are they fundies also? Paul rebuked those who used coarse language. What is the “whole” counsel of God?
So there are those who appear licentious and ARE licentious, they promote our freedom to sin as we are “under grace” Then there are those who are accused of promoting sin, and in reality are doing no such thing. They preach grace as being totally free in Christ to “choose to not sin”
There is no “freewill choice” prior to God’s choosing and drawing you to Himself
Before you guys break your arms patting yourselves on the back, you should know that you are neither reformed, nor do you fit into what MLJ was describing.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I would consider it an honor to “not be reformed” I freely made the choice to NOT be Reformed (though I appreciate many of the things I learned in my Reformed days)
So, MLJ belongs to the Reformed and can’t be claimed, appreciated by anyone else? Most Truly Reformed types would never claim MLJ anyway. His charismatic/pentecostal understanding of the Holy Spirit is too much for them.
Bruce
December 5th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I am not talking about being reformed.That is a simple calirfication, if that is what any here are thinking.
I am saying that what Lloyd-Jones had to say is not understood here at all.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Chris P,
Your are so arrogant to tell us anything about who we are…
In fact you show your lack of understanding of grace as you use it as a weapon to attack people here…
Shame on you…
iggy
December 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Paul rebuked those who used coarse language.
Umm… haven’t we seen you use “coarse language” numerous times on this blog?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Chris P,
Wow. At this point to describe you as hubristic is an understatement.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Chris P,
I believe you are the one that mentioned “reformed” and “free will” I am just reacting, err I mean responding, to what you wrote.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
On the coarse language issue. What is meant by coarse?
Paul used the common language of his day. Some would suggest the some of Paul’s language use in the Greek text would be considered coarse.
Is the word *hit a coarse word? It is a common word here in farm country. Do we have to say pee instead of piss to avoid coarse speech?
All would agree we should not take God’s name in vain. The rest of it is good language, bad language, and situational language.
I may speak one way among “the boys” that I would not speak “among the girls.” Language appropriate for the tavern may not be appropriate for the Church house.
There are real issues facing the Western Church today. Using coarse language ain’t one of them. Coarse language doesn’t even make the top 100 list of problems.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Bruce - please don’t take us there again - so soon after the last time.
Check this thread and this one before continuing down this line…
Please! For the sake of the children!
December 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Bruce,
Nice try but forget it. The only response you’ll get is “its wrong because we say its wrong and you’re going to hell”.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Ut OH….ya better head for the foxhole, Chris!!;-)
December 5th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Ok
Can I, at least, use bywords?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Damn, don’t get it to the swearing issue again. The dogs will come running. It’s like Pavlov’s dog, I swear.
Oh, I really did. LOL.
Joe
December 5th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I mean Darn. Sorry. My point will be lost.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
The Lord has been pleased to raise me up to provide a list of coarse words. Just for a donation I’ll provide it to you and the reformers all agree with me.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
*jumps out of the foxhole*
Holy s**t!
*dives back in*
December 5th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
” some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows you to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Jude 1:4
December 5th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Whew, glad that’s not talking about CHRISTIANS, Inquisitor.
Dodged thatbullet. Thanks for the heads up though, I’ll be on the lookout for ‘those people’.
=)
Joe
December 5th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
You are correct Inquisitor, and some also have formed churches that act like an exclusive doctrinal club. I have seen both. And even if everything that some ODMs are saying about the doctrinal departure, where is the pathos for the brethren? Why the mocking and caustic name calling? Why are their no tears and compassion? And why do they never blame the devil and his deception, why do they act like everyone is doing it on purpose.
I just cannot see Jesus looking at his 99 sheep and calling the lost one names and passing out mocking posters that make the 99 laugh with disdain at that semi-pelagian drifter. I can see Jesus warning the others not to stary while he wept over the one that strayed.
So you are correct Inq that there is some teaching along the lines you suggest, but our behavior to some of our deceived brethren should be humble compassion. Fasting and prayer, surely not mocking.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Rick,
I agree completely. However, when dealing with “religious” people, i.e. people that think that they are part of the 99 when really they are the 1 that is lost, you cannot ‘baby’ talk them.
In Jesus’ day He had to deal with the Pharisees and others who considered themselves righteous before God when really they weren’t. I think that it’s obvious that Jesus didn’t “baby talk” these guys. He shot straight and clear, not beating around the bush. You could make the same accusation against Jesus, “hey Jesus why do you call these guys ‘vipers’ and ‘whitewashed tombs.’? Hey Jesus where’s your tears? Hey where’s the love Jesus?”
Seriously! Could you not make such a case against even Christ? Yes of course.
Was He right to treat them so harshly and un-lovingly?
Of course.
How do you deal with religious people today? When I say religious people, I mean the people that ‘think’ that they are right with God with they are not. I mean the people that twist scripture just like the Pharisees did. I mean people that make allowance for sin, and make light of it.
How do you treat these people? How would Jesus treat these people? Would He treat them differently than He treated the Pharisees? If so, why didn’t He give the Pharisees equal treatment? Is Jesus bias, or would He treat this class of people exactly the same as He did the Pharisees?
Imagine yourself talking with someone that is lost. They have perverted the gospel.
Just for the sake of the conversation, let’s say that they are the ones that Jude 4 is talking about. So you’re talking to one of these “ungodly people”
They teach that it’s okay to sin. They teach that sin really isn’t a big deal because it’ll be forgiven by God anyway. They truly believe that they are saved! They truly believe that they are teaching a correct gospel. BUT, they are lost, and they are leading others to into the same “condemnation” that awaits them.
After all, this is exactly the state of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
We already know how Jesus would have handled it, because we can go back an read His words. The question then arises, do we attack Jesus’ “lack of tears” and his “name calling” or do we give our attention to the truth of His words, instead of our perceptions of the condition of His heart.
You can tell the ODM’s “why all the name calling?” You could tell Jesus the same thing.
The question is, are these “religious people” of our day (the one’s that the ODM’s are attacking), leading people away from the true God?
In other words, instead of attacking how you perceive their heart, why not attack the truth of their argument?
Many times they get tagged with the “Pharisee” label, but isn’t it also possible that the one’s that they are attacking are the real Pharisees?
Couldn’t they be the ones that are leading people away, twisting scripture, holding to parts of the law while not fulfilling the others, mistakenly believing themselves to be part of the kingdom, and the like?
You could point to both sides and say that the description above matches either one.
The question remains. Who’s right?
Who’s really the one that’s lost? I submit to you tonight that it’s the side that makes little of sin, the side that isn’t striving for Holiness, the side that isn’t “striving to enter the narrow gate”
You be the judge of who best fits that description. I won’t make any judgments for you. You’re a smart man. You have eyes to see.
Love,
Inq.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I agree Inq.
Though I’m not sure anyone here is making light of sin, or aren’t striving for holiness. “For without holiness, no one will see the Lord”
Don’t forget that Jesus could say to the hypocritical religious leaders all those things because He’s God and knows exactly who they are and what they do. We need to be a bit more careful. I’m not saying we can’t discern, or call a spade a spade, but we definitely are NOT Jesus.
The problem with the ODMs is that they use unnecessay and excessive name calling, and seem to revel in it. I wouldn’t consider what Jesus did “name calling”. He called them exactly what they were. However “Purpose Driven Pope” is not accurate, and it’s just hubris and mean. LOL, come on…Ecumenical Church of Deceit? Jesus spoke against slander you know. Heartily against it. Is Jesus a hypocrite? Did Jesus slander?
I consider some of what the ODMs write as blatant slander. That’s the difference.
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Inquisitor,
I was following you until the penultimate paragraph. Those questions are clearly tilted to favor the ODMs. Why isn’t it permissible to phrase the “money” question in the following manner?
Who’s really the one that’s lost? I submit to you tonight that it’s the side that makes little of grace, the side that isn’t striving for love, the side that isn’t striving to “be made complete in the same and in the same judgment.”
Then who wins? No one. Obviously. There is no winner. The ODMs will continue to quote Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees and this place will continue to quote, well, pretty much the rest of the New Testament.
It’s wisdom that distinguishes the two.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Notice I don’t say they’re apostates, heretics, or unsaved because of that. That’s called mercy and grace.
Love
December 6th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Inq -
I don’t see anyone on this site leading other people to sin or to avoid striving for holiness. Rather, I see the writers at this site attempting to separate tradition from scripture - because to break with tradition has nothing to do with sin (and is often a break from legalism), whereas to break with scripture is to sin.
None of us wants to redefine sin, but none of us wants to become a Pharisee, either.
In modern Christianity, there are (at least) two poles which pull Christians - one pulls in the direction of legalism/Phariseeism. That pole stigmatizes Christians who wear the wrong clothes, sing the wrong music, worship in the wrong buildings, associate with the wrong people, aren’t observant enough of tradition, aren’t observant enough of ritual, etc. etc. - the same criticisms that the Pharisees made of Jesus.
The other pull is to “look just like the world”. That pole seeks to say we shouldn’t look any different from the culture, we shouldn’t make waves, we should blend in completely and not stand out. That pole says that it’s OK to be fiscally irresponsible, it’s OK to divorce at just as high a rate as the pagans, it’s OK to cheat on your taxes, it’s OK to lie (if it’s for a good reason), etc. etc.
Where I try to walk, and where the writers I have recruited for this site (or who have volunteered) want to be is somewhere between those poles - where we are holy without being self-righteous; and where we are relevant to the needs of the world without being just like it. Where most of our resistance seems to come from is the former (the pharisee tendency), which means we do need to be cognizant we don’t move off-center in the opposite direction…
December 6th, 2007 at 12:10 am
‘grace’ for $1000 Alex…..
answer:
1Timothy 1:6 .”…..some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;”
question:
what is…..what happens to some who try to redefine clear biblical doctrines?
December 6th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Tom,
“vain jangling” aside (the KJV always gives y’all away):
And what “clear biblical doctrines” are you referring to, as I don’t see anyone here “redefining” clear biblical doctrines…
December 6th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Its a sad day when so many Christians allow their tradition to define scripture rather than the other way around.
Its also a sad day taht so many Christians can’t recognize grace, much less give it.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Breaking from tradition vs. breaking from scripture is a fine line.
Pastors traditionally never cussed. Why?
” Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving…and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. ”
How about watching South Park, Knocked up, and other wicked shows? Do you justify these things and say that it’s okay, or do you EXPOSE them and take no part in them?
December 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Inquisitor,
Quit treating God’s word so shallowly.
Also, just because you don’t have the ability to function in a secular society without falling into a lifestyle of sin, doesn’t mean that no one can.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Inquisitor,
You didn’t respond to my question. I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t watch South Park, Knocked Up, and other such shows. I think they are about as edifying as anything Ken Silva puts to keyboard. (Although, of course, much filthier.) Where does that leave me?
I also am not in the habit of patting myself on the back and thanking God I’m not like all the fire-sale evangelicals.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Inq,
Hearkening back to this post, I would label those things which you have identified as “Convictions”, and I would exercise caution participating in any of them only because I would not want to lead someone else into sin. I would also have to agree with Tim, that your list of “sins” are pretty shallow…
December 6th, 2007 at 12:47 am
I seek to be like Jesus, who could handle dining with prostitutes and tax collectors. If I am to be like Him, then I’ll strive for tihs. By His power and Grace, I will be able to do the same as He did. To walk as He did.
South Park Shmouth Park. Pff what an uninspired show.
Tim…I REALLY want to reopen the “cussing” conversation with Inq….pweeeeeeseee? His definition is just so vague and arbitrary!!!
lol,
Joe
PS, Tom M, that Jeapordy question was a cool idea. Too bad it was meant as a sly attack on other Christians instead of “edification”, you know like when it says “let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth but only what is useful for edification. That’s called “swearing” at someone when you do that. Or cussing. Whatever.
Broaden your definitions to fit the Bible, gentlemen.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:51 am
re: what happens to some who try to redefine clear biblical doctrines?
they ’swerve’ onto the ‘wide’ path and excuse error….under the guise of ‘grace’ and love’. What about Paul’s “God forbid” in answer to his own question, and let us not forget the apostle’s “let him be accursed” for those who “preach another gospel.” But if we will not admit it of those who so obviously do, and in fact spend all our time defending them…..
he that hath ears…….
Alex….holiness for $1000
December 6th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Wow.
I believe in grace and i don’t live a licentious life.
But it’s easy to condemn another as immoral when they don’t share the preferences you’ve made moral imperatives.
God bless you today, Chris P.
You haven’t been around in a while…
probably busy with re-writing your purpose driven church vision statement…
Or at the very least excised the portion about “using whatever means” to spread the gospel since that opens the door to emergent compromise.
Dang! I forgot! You’re “in” with the god-squad so that language doesn’t mean what it means in anyone else’s mouth.
whatever.
You’re a big whiner who accuses others of whining when they won’t lay down and take it from you or your friends.
It’s just sooooooooooo hard when people refuse to let you sinfully try to shout them down, browbeat or dominate them.
I feel for you…
And as far as “what we know” and “what you know”…Go read Job 12:1-2, If that seems good in the Lord, O beloved flock..it’s like Job was speaking directly to you and your friends.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Well, maybe in the end, that’s where people can agree to disagree. For if I err, (and Lord knows I do) then may I err because I loved too much, believed too much, hoped too much.
Yes, Ken and ilk have certainly carved out a doctrinal space so small that we can be certain that they are as pure as the driven snow. But they are also bunch of hateful malcontents.
And for the record, all of the defenses are defenses against what are perceived to be unfair attacks. (Not a single time have I seen anyone around here honestly teach open heresy. Not once.)
If that’s so wrong, then should I quit my job as a lawyer?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Be nice NC.
Do unto others. You’re looking a little harsh tonight buddy. Keep it in check =)
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 1:10 am
tom,
You still haven’t defined the “clear doctrines” you’re trying to address here (as all-too-often these “clear doctrines” end up being cultural preferences and not scriptural absolutes). Rather, you’re right now just casting aspersions in a rather haphazard fashion…
December 6th, 2007 at 1:14 am
I know, I know…
=)
December 6th, 2007 at 1:18 am
nc,
If you were my friend and i was acting like Chris P, I would thank you for your honest and straight forward words to me.
iggy
December 6th, 2007 at 2:07 am
CL
Okay, what is meant by ‘redefining clear biblical doctrine’ has not been clearly defined. Using ‘grace’ as a sort of coverall is what is meant. Aspersions, not really because that leans toward slander, haphazard, not so much, accusations, no. Observation. Just calling it like i see it. (and I really cannot see what “cultural preferences” has to do with anything….lost me on that one…no need to explain).
Anyway…that will have to suffice if not satisfy. Let the words stand or fall of their own merit or lack thereof.
tm
December 6th, 2007 at 8:25 am
I’m so frustrated!
December 6th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Everyone needs to take a break from this conversation and go listen to Jeff Manion’s sermon from 11.25.07 at Mars Hill entitled Window Washing. He gives a good description of the Pharisees and what they stood for. He also talks of the opposite problem in which Christians have no distinctiveness from the rest of culture. It’s very good.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Phil that was a great sermon! It really clarified many of my thoughts.
Good suggestion.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Is Blair Wingo and the Passion for CHrist movement a legalist/Pharisee? I think she has experienced the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet she calls the church to holiness.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Holiness through experiencing the grace of Christ.
Not Holiness to get the grace of Christ.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Phil - as you probably guessed (or maybe you heard me in a podcast), my comment above was organized on Manion’s sermon (he said it so nicely and concisely!)
December 6th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“Holiness through experiencing the grace of Christ.
Not Holiness to get the grace of Christ. ”
Chris for the win.
I think that pretty much sums it up, if we need holiness to earn the redemption of God, we’re screwed.
If we seek holiness in response to the grace of God, then I think we’re on the right track.
I think the crux comes as to weather seeking to be sinless becomes the whole of our faith persuit, if sin managment becomes the highest virtue then we’re getting distracted.
Sin happens sometimes, we can’t avoid it, we need to confess it and keep walking in repentance, but do that just keep walking, not beat ourselves up or making ultimate holiness this side of the new heaven and new earth a priority.
But if we make salvation the prize for a job well done instead of the work of God, not only do we make God a whole lot less soverign, we make Him a Liar.
I’d rather trust that He’s got it, that aknowledging what He’s done and living in that truth is my end of things.
Otherwise how much holiness is enough? How much repetnance? How much sin can pop up before we’d say it didn’t count in the first place? I don’t see these baromoters in scripture because it’s not the point.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I completely agree with holiness by faith in Christ. However, Paul warns us not to disregard the sins of our lives and to assume we are helping grace be grace. We must surrender to sanctification which is both external and internal, but all in the context of love for God and man.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:13 am
And I wouldn’t be suggesting we disregard it, but that we look at it in context, that we can’t delude ourselves into thinking we’ll be sinless, that we take God at His word that he is faithful and just to forgive rather then trying to skate by without forgiveness.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Thanks for the link, Phil!! I hereby pronounce myself GUILTY!!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Kevin,
Those were great words. I think you nailed the crux of holiness in Christian life.
It comes and is possible by the Grace of God.
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
And this is my frustration! Where did I say ignore sin? Or where did I say Grace for the sake of Grace?
My life is changed and is changing by “abiding in Christ” not by human standards of holiness.
I have no problem with drinking. I do have a problem with drunkenness. I have no problem with cigar smoking. I do have a problem with addiction to tobacco. I have no problem with legalism. I do have a problem with judging people on how holy they look or act. I’ve known very pious looking men who’s hearts were as hard as stone. I’ve know very rebellious looking men who’s hearts were after God.
At the end of the day I’m responsible for me. No one can hold me responsible for their actions and I can’t hold anybody responsible for mine. I trust the Holy Spirit to convict me of my unholy actions. In my life that has been a much more accurate source then even my closest friends.
For the record…I average 2 alcoholic beverages a year. A Guiness on the 4th of July and Baileys Irish Creme and Egg Nog at Christmas. I also average 2 cigars a year. One on my birthday and one on the annual guys get together. This may go up to 3 if Joe Martino and I ever get together.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Chris,
2 drinks? You FAIL the holiness test! LOL. jk.
By the way, I think you need to restate this:
You have no problem with legalism? LOL, never though I’d hear YOU say that. =)
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
If someone wants to be a legalist in their own life and twist themselves into a frenzy with check lists and guilt; more power to them.
When they start trying to hold me to their standards of holiness and expecting me to abide by their checklists then I have a problem.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Nobody addressed any comment to you and nobody suggested you advocated ignoring sin. I quoted Paul to all of us.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
So you really have NO problem with legalism??
LOL, come on, that’s a lie. Err…rather…a not-full-truth. =)
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Okay; so I do have a problem with legalism.
rephrase of the above:
Legalism drives me nuts.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Rick my apologies for taking your intent out of context.
I was basing your intent on the following:
“However” usually indicates a disagreement or clarification of a previous statement.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
If a person is against alcoholism then why drink at all? If even a couple of drinks could hook a person, just don’t do it. If you are against getting hooked on tobacco, then why smoke at all? cigars, cigs, pot….just don’t do it….where do you all draw the line on porn? A few racy photos? a sneek a peek here and there? I mean…use the filters and just don’t do it…guard your heart….set boundaries…those who set boundaries for their lives are vilified and called legalists and Pharisees…Blair Wingo busts it up on You tube and calls the mockery of Christianity what it is…..let HER introduce you to the Christ….not me….
I’m just saying when you have GRACE operating in your life….you are LAYING DOWN ON THE ALTAR the stuff of this world….think about a “living sacrifice”…….what is THAT? The lambs on the altar were burnt to a crisp…DEAD….we are to be a LIVING SACRIFICE….a continual BURNING OF FLESH ON THE ALTAR OF GOD…..not a a laundrey lists of
“don’t” to take your fun away……THE FUN IS TO BE A LIVING SACRIFICE….that is where TRUE FREEDOM LIES….because you know JESUS MORE…..and when He shows you something else that is IN THE WAY OF HIM……PUT IT ON THE ALTAR AND CONTINUE TO BURN BABY…place your WHOLE BODY AND EVERY AREA OF IT on the altar and let the refiner’s fire do it’s work…….THE LORD’S GRACE enables you to do that…in and of yourself, there is NO WAY you could do it…but BY HIS GRACE you can……and you will KNOW HIM MORE…..BE THOU MY VISION….that is the current thing He has shown me….I have no agenda but CHrist before me…HE is my vision, my mission statement, my all in all….
CHRIST and HIM CRUCIFIED….and me crucified as well
December 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I believe I said drunkeness. Correct me if I’m wrong is not Self-Control a fruit of the Spirit?
December 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Ah, TJ you always make the thread more interesting.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
well a lot of Christians have failed the “self-control ” test as a few drinks have led to a few more and so on till you’re a walking alcoholic. WHAT IS WRONG WITH NOT DOIONG SOMETHING? I think it goes back to SELF……tell a kid NOT to do something and it makes them want to all the more…..an adult feels the same way….”I can drink in moderation”….oh really? it takes just a little to feel a buzz and that is why people drink….eases the nreves in social situations….I know…i was there and done that….NOW..because of the GRACE OF GOD I can completely abstain and feel like I missing nothing…actually…gaining more of God because the POWER OF HIS HOLY SPIRIT operates in those social situations now….Be thou my vision Lord…MORE OF YOU
December 6th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I like the taste of wine.
Nothing wrong with not doing something.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Not doing something that is sinful, or can lead you to sin, I mean.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
TJ,
This may come as a shock to you, but hte vast, vast, vast majority of people who consume alcohol do so in a way pleasing to God.
Now if only we could do something about the people who abstain from alcohol in a way that displeases God.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Jesus drank with sinners…
Jesus didn’t sin. Seems He moderated pretty well. Drinking is a cultural thing.
Drunkenness is foolishness and sin though. Being careful is good, I agree. But I don’t feel convicted if I have a drink.
Joe
December 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
TJ, how’s this work, you taking the place of the Holy Spirit? D’you guys split up the world into regions and we just got lucky enough for you to get our region or what?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Tim , I’d like to say you’re right, but I can’t. married a man who’s dad was an alcoholic….still dealing with emotional wounds from his past….it effects my marriage to this very day. Would like to say that the vast, vast , vast majority of people who drink please God, but AA says other wise. They exist for big time boozers trying to stay off of it. Oh. did you mean the vast , vast vast majority of CHRISTIANS who drink, please God….oh well…okay….that’s your take…all I know is I got buzzed very quickly from a couple of wine coolers in my drinking days…now if a buzzed Christian can walk with God and hear the Holy SPirit…ok…old Noah got wasted and his kid saw him naked….BAD MOVE…..did not a cursing follow that? I think that the vast , vast, vast majority are FOOLING THEMSELVES and JUSTIFYING why they drink….take the high road….just stop it….it’s not really a big deal….if you can not be in a group of people and NOT DRINK….you have a “drinking problem”…..you are not at ease(and walking in peace) so you must do as they do and drink, to fit in.
With all of the alcoholics in America, SOMEBODY have the GUTS to say IT’S OKAY NOT TO DRINK, IN FACT YOU MAY FEEL BETTER IF YOU DON’T.
“word..”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I personally think that TJ drinks every time she posts somewhere.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
TJ,
Is it a sin to drink? (a simple yes or no, please)
If it is not a sin to drink, then is it not up to every believer to determine, based upon his (or her) own conscience when doing so is appropriate or inappropriate?
Please, before you reply, read this article (for context) and identify whether not drinking - not getting drunk - is A) an absolute; B) a conviction you hold; or C) a preference.
Do not post again, please, until you are ready to answer these simple questions…
December 6th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Jesus drank. Apostles drank. Paul told Timothy to drank.
The Bible wins again =)
December 7th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Everytime I read a TJ post it drives me to drinking.
This website cites a study that puts the number of alcoholics at 15.2 million people, which puts it at something like 4-5% of the total population. Make your judgments accordingly.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:48 am
It is not a sin to drink very moderately, however it may be prudent to refrain within a culture that so grossly abuses alcohol on many levels. It would not be much of a sacrifice, especially since we rarely sacrifice anything.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Rick,
You’ve identified an excellent position on the topic - recognizing that a) drinking, in and of itself is not a sin; b) as long as it does not become an issue of pride/legalism, abstinence from it can be a way to be ‘different than the world’; and c) the ball is in the court of each Christian to weigh these things, but the determination of the honor/dishonor brought to God in that decision is a matter of the heart, and is between God and that individual.
Far be it from us to add to scripture by defining it ontologically as sin, but far be it from us, as well, to declare it a liberty that trumps individual conscience or witness.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:48 am
As I worked my way through Bible colleg I once had a job as a busboy in a large restaurant. I was soon promoted to head busboy and then asked to become a waiter. They asked me in front of fifty employess and I had to say I didn’t think I could. The manager asked my why. I said it was my personal conviction not to serve alcohol.
I ended up being the kitchen manager, but many people came to me afterward and asked me about me position. Some where Christians, some were backsliden, and some were lost. I had the privilege of leading two people to Christ over the next several months all stemming from that meeting.
We must be careful about acting prideful though.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:26 am
I’m scared. I actually can see eye to eye (kind of) with T.J. on something.
I grew in a household where we just never had any alcohol around. I only ever saw an adult drinking a few times my whole life before I went to college, actually. Now somehow I actually was able to go to a university where drinking is probably the biggest past time (a drinking town with a football problem…), and went my whole stint without having one drink. I’m not saying that as a pride thing, just a fact. I can honestly say that no one ever pressured me to drink anywhere, really.
I guess my point is this - I guess I have a hard time believing Tim’s assertion that a “vast, vast, vast majority of people who consume alcohol do so in a way pleasing to God”, at least in the US. 64% of adults in the US drink, meaning, of course, that 36% abstain (which is somewhat amazing to me). Using, Tim’s stats that means around 8-10% of the people who drink are alcoholics. That doesn’t give any data on people who drink to the point of being drunk.
I guess it’s just my environment, but I see so much of the destructive side of alcohol that it would be really hard for me to even drink at all where I am now. I can think of probably half a dozen students who died in the last two years alone because of alcohol. Who knows how many others have done things they regret because of it, or haven’t lived up to their potential. Where I’m at I see alcohol as a huge problem, and something most people cannot use in a God-honoring way.
Now, I know I am in a cultural island here, so I can’t make blanket statements. If I lived somewhere else, and wasn’t always around college students, I might feel free to have a drink every now and then (although I still think I’d rather spend my money on other things).
I will say that my position has softened a bit over the years. I used to get really angry seeing people drink and get drunk. Now I tend to get sad. It makes me sad to see students try to medicate themselves with alcohol.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:02 am
sad…I agree Phil..thoughtful post…..America is drowning in alcohol and the results (that still play out in my marriage from a man who never drinks but bears the emotional scars of a father who was a gambling, raging alcoholic) are SAD.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:12 am
TJ,
Did you read the article and answer the question?
I agree with Phil on the wisdom of abstinence, particularly in the sight of those who might stumble, but I read agreement between Phil’s statement and mine - it is a culturally contextual choice that is often wise to make in favor of abstention.
This is completely different that a faux-biblical prohibition on alcohol.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:55 am
There in lies the crux of the issue.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Chris,
Yes that is it.
By the way, I should add that making hard and fast rule for everyone prohibiting alcohol is probably the worst thing a Christian can do. I think the reason I was never tempted to rebel against my parents in this issue growing up is because they led by example more than anything. I don’t even know if I can remember them specifically ever telling me not to drink.
Also, I think that Christians moralizing on this issue is why it is treated differently here than other countries. We make it a “forbidden fruit” of sorts and so when people are in an environment where it’s available to them, they just go crazy. I’ve talked to some of my friends from Europe, and they can’t believe that it’s such a big issue over here.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Chris, good article….but since most anything can be a stumbling block to someone , somewhere. what do we do? Do absolutes in moderation, convicitions in moderation…or clamp down and don’t do anything at all? Having been a social drinker in my past I know the reason I drank was peer pressure and socially propping up my insecurities. Or just being depressed about my sad miserable life. When I had a winer cooler I never once thought of any health benefits or how a glass of red wine before bed was good for my arteries. After coming to Christ and growing in Him it was easy to put the booze down. My identity was in HIM, as was my security. So I had courage to be in groups of people drinking and not drink and answer questions WHY I was not drinking. We’re trying to raise our kids that way. Strong in their convictions. Not from a LEGALIST point of view but from the point of view that it can bog you down in your walk with the Lord. Walking free of vices is a very good thing. As for people in Europe drinking is no big deal because they are
for the most part, secular. Here in America the cultural battle wages as to whether we will be secular or a people of faith in the Lord Jesus. And that is why we struggle with it….flesh and spirit are battling…over in the UK the flesh has won out.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
It would be helpful I think to define what “stumbling block” means. What the original writers and readers would have understood it to mean. Too often I hear people say, “Well, I think drinking is a sin, so your drinking is a stumbling block to me.” That’s such a perversion of the text it almost makes me stumble b/c I want to beat the person.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Joe - Romans chapter 14 does encourage us to be aware of others and their consciences when we can. If you went out with a couple of believers and you knew they were not drinkers and you did not know their view on it, it would be inappropriate to order drinks without knowing. Right?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Rick,
If they just felt it was sin, then I’m not causing them to stumble by drinking. Otherwise, my wife couldn’t wear pants because I know believers who believe that is wrong. Causing someone to stumble in Romans 14 is causing them to sin. How am I causing them to sin by drinking a beer?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I believe the phrase is “offend their weak consciences”. It isn’t causing them to sin, it would be your sin. And I agree there are things that cannot be avoided.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:47 am
TJ,
I would say that, out of love for brothers, we ought to be accommodating with our freedom, realizing that there are some who will try to use this (per Joe’s comment) in a controlling fashion (and this is what we should avoid).
For example, I know a woman at a church I used to attend who would use every “offense” as a way to control her personal preferences - complaining to the minister every time that someone wore jeans on stage; every time that someone placed something on top (or sat on the edge of) the organ; etc.
My advice would be 1) don’t go out of your way to offend a brother’s conscience, realizing that this can be accidental; 2) realize that you can be part of the problem if you try to codify preferences/convictions as if they were absolutes; 3) utilize the pastor(s) and/or elders of the church to directly address the petty issues (particularly dealing with style); 4) when you find yourself being ‘offended’ at something, do a gut check of the A/C/P classification before you open your mouth (often the hardest for me);
With the internet, though, we would always have to go to the lowest common denominator in discussion if we are not careful, and we also need to realize that TALKING about drinking/style/etc. is not the same as DOING the drinking/style/etc. With that in mind, we need to be able to discuss these things without fear of offense.