Evil Men
7 hours ago
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Old School Preaching, But Is it Complete?
Mark from Here I Blog, linked to this video and as I started to watch it I had some differing emotions hit me. One, was that it did spur me to thought on my works and the real change, or lack thereof, that has happened because of Christ. Second though, was that I realized how much grace was left out of this small section of preaching. I haven't listened to the whole sermon, nor do I know anything of Al Martin, but I am a little iffy on hearing something like this. It does honestly strike a cord with me as something I need to hear, but without grace attached closely and strongly to this message, what makes this different than any other preaching of having high morals for righteousness? What are your thoughts?
Monday, November 16, 2009
My Journey Out of Dispensationalism
I grew up in the SBC, and therefore, have always believed in what is called dispensationalism. I will admit though, I believe it more on the basis of what was told to me, instead of true study of the facts found in the Bible. My journey from semi Arminianism to Calvinism started about 6 years ago, so I am seeing the same things happen within this transformation as well. I am right in the middle of this, so I cannot say I am fully amillennial and covenantal, but that is probably just a matter of time now. I first started looking into this as I noticed that all those that I respected to teach me about the truth of Scripture was in one way or another amillennial and covenantal. Not only that, but I had a couple of buddies in Josh Follansbee and David Ponter who kept hammering away at me and then David Drake entered the fray as well to challenge me. David challenged me in saying, "Dispensationalists make Israel and charts and maps the hero of the book of Revelation, instead of Christ being the center and the hero." This hit me hard. Not only that but what was funny is that Josh actually predicted about 4 years ago that if I truly loved Scripture, I would naturally change my views. What did these guys all have in common with me? They all were in some sort dispensationalists as well before making the switch to the historical team of the total Reformed.
One of the first things that caught me off guard, and one that made me start to think was when Josh told me that the Bible records Israel as taking the land promised to them through Abraham from God. The prophecies concerning national Israel were always a big deal for me in why there was dispensations and why there was a literal 1000 year reign of Christ. Some things really started to ramp up when some reading started to happen. These were:
1. A Reading of the Bible (I started a Bible Reading plan that showed me some of the fulfillments that had literally happened for Israel)
2. Reading The Returning King by Vern Poythress which was recommended to me by David Drake
3. Reading A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger which was recommended by Josh Follansbee
4. Reading Biblical Studies in Final Things by William E. Cox which was recommended by David Ponter and was the clincher.
In this post, I want to simply put forth those things that have been literally fulfilled for national Israel that dispensationalists still hold out hope for in the 1000 year reign of Christ. Here are those things that have actually already been fulfilled and are over and done with:
1. The land promise to Abraham pertaining to the land of Palestine have already been literally fulfilled through Joshua. Look specifically to Joshua 11:23 and 21:43
So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Thus the land had rest from war.
Joshua 11:23
So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it.
Joshua 21:43
a. The proofs that Israel became a great nation, are too numerous and well known are well documented and one doesn't need simple biblical proof to see this fact
b. The promise that the descendants would be as numerous as the sand of the sea and the stars in the sky has been fulfilled when seeing Nehemiah 9:23:
You made their sons numerous as the stars of heaven, And You brought them into the land which You had told their fathers to enter and possess.
c. The promise to Abraham that the Messiah would include all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:3) was fulfilled in the incarnation of Christ and the book of Acts
2. After the return from the bondage in Egypt other prophecies concerning the nation of Israel included returning to the land, rebuilding the temple and the reinstitution of sacrifices (this is where dispensationalists become close, if not full, heretics). This has already been fulfilled both historically and biblically. The temple was literally rebuilt in 516 B.C. and so the sacrificial system was also back in place. One need only read such books as Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Zachariah to find that there is no need for such prophecies to be for the End Times. Remember that all the prophecies concerning the return to the land, the temple being rebuilt and the sacrificial system being reinstated were all made before 516 B.C. Since this time of fulfillment in 516 B.C. there have been no further mention of these prophecies, including Malachi and the New Testament.
3. Since the above mentioned have been fulfilled, all other prophecies were to include the New Covenant of believers which would include Gentiles into God's people and therefore all further unfulfilled prophecies, such as the second Advent, the judgment seat, which includes the Day of the Lord, will include all believers in the Lord Jesus, not merely national Israel. This is known as the New Covenant that was prophecied by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31 and will be carried out by those who believe, the church. Both Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
Galatians 3:28-29
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 10:16
For these reasons, I have departed dispensationalism and have been doing much study to find what I honestly believe. This has put the right focus back in my study, which is off Israel and back to the true Israel, which is Christ. He should always be our focus and our hero in all of the Bible. When we start to cloud him with other issues, we start to fall into idolatry.
Read More......
One of the first things that caught me off guard, and one that made me start to think was when Josh told me that the Bible records Israel as taking the land promised to them through Abraham from God. The prophecies concerning national Israel were always a big deal for me in why there was dispensations and why there was a literal 1000 year reign of Christ. Some things really started to ramp up when some reading started to happen. These were:
1. A Reading of the Bible (I started a Bible Reading plan that showed me some of the fulfillments that had literally happened for Israel)
2. Reading The Returning King by Vern Poythress which was recommended to me by David Drake
3. Reading A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger which was recommended by Josh Follansbee
4. Reading Biblical Studies in Final Things by William E. Cox which was recommended by David Ponter and was the clincher.
In this post, I want to simply put forth those things that have been literally fulfilled for national Israel that dispensationalists still hold out hope for in the 1000 year reign of Christ. Here are those things that have actually already been fulfilled and are over and done with:
1. The land promise to Abraham pertaining to the land of Palestine have already been literally fulfilled through Joshua. Look specifically to Joshua 11:23 and 21:43
So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Thus the land had rest from war.
Joshua 11:23
So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it.
Joshua 21:43
a. The proofs that Israel became a great nation, are too numerous and well known are well documented and one doesn't need simple biblical proof to see this fact
b. The promise that the descendants would be as numerous as the sand of the sea and the stars in the sky has been fulfilled when seeing Nehemiah 9:23:
You made their sons numerous as the stars of heaven, And You brought them into the land which You had told their fathers to enter and possess.
c. The promise to Abraham that the Messiah would include all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:3) was fulfilled in the incarnation of Christ and the book of Acts
2. After the return from the bondage in Egypt other prophecies concerning the nation of Israel included returning to the land, rebuilding the temple and the reinstitution of sacrifices (this is where dispensationalists become close, if not full, heretics). This has already been fulfilled both historically and biblically. The temple was literally rebuilt in 516 B.C. and so the sacrificial system was also back in place. One need only read such books as Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Zachariah to find that there is no need for such prophecies to be for the End Times. Remember that all the prophecies concerning the return to the land, the temple being rebuilt and the sacrificial system being reinstated were all made before 516 B.C. Since this time of fulfillment in 516 B.C. there have been no further mention of these prophecies, including Malachi and the New Testament.
3. Since the above mentioned have been fulfilled, all other prophecies were to include the New Covenant of believers which would include Gentiles into God's people and therefore all further unfulfilled prophecies, such as the second Advent, the judgment seat, which includes the Day of the Lord, will include all believers in the Lord Jesus, not merely national Israel. This is known as the New Covenant that was prophecied by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31 and will be carried out by those who believe, the church. Both Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
Galatians 3:28-29
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 10:16
For these reasons, I have departed dispensationalism and have been doing much study to find what I honestly believe. This has put the right focus back in my study, which is off Israel and back to the true Israel, which is Christ. He should always be our focus and our hero in all of the Bible. When we start to cloud him with other issues, we start to fall into idolatry.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Athanasian Creed and the Early Church: Clearly Amillennial
This is taken from an article written by Martin R. Bachicha and I found it quite interesting. Thanks to Mark at Here I Blog for the link. I have always been told by other premils that the early fathers were mostly premils. This starts the investigation and shows that this might not be true at all. I have been studying a lot lately on the subject of end times, Revelation and amillenialism. I have to say that I have definitely switched my view to leave behind dispensationalism, but not quite sure where that leaves me. I am looking forward to continually seek the truth of the Scriptures in what they teach, instead of what I have always been taught. Here is an article to show forth some of this, and next week I will be showing some insight on the main things that have switched my view of eschatology.
The Athanasian Creed and the Early
Church: Clearly Amillennial
By Martin R. Bachicha
Weren't the Early Church Fathers Premillennialists?
In 1976 Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a masters thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church." But upon completing his thesis, Boyd concluded the following in response, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis [apostolic age through Justin Martyr]." [ 1] (Quoted by Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 235. [ 2] )
Thomas Albrecht, who has done additional research on this topic, also writes, "some premillennialists had attempted to show that premillennialism was the ‘pervasive view of the earliest orthodox fathers’ (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p.202). But many additional scholars have shown this to be false, including Boyd, D.H. Kromminga, Ned Stonehouse, W.G.T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, and Philip Schaff. According to Boyd, the best that can be said of the early Church father is that they were ‘seminal amillennialists’ (cf. Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 239). The early Church fathers … Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papius, admitted that there were many other Christians who were quite orthodox and not premillennial." [ 3]
The following quote by the early church historian Eusebius from his classic work The History of the Church clearly demonstrates the amillennial, consummationist outlook held by the early church. Speaking of the grandsons of Jude, he writes: "the grandsons of Jude.... When asked [by the Emperor Domitian] about Christ and his kingdom--what it was like, and where it would appear--they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead ...." [The History of the Church by Eusebius] from Charles Ludwig, Ludwig’s Handbook of New Testament Rulers and Cities. [ 4]
Eusebius is one of the early church fathers who most clearly denounces "chiliasm," as premillennialism was then called. In the same work he writes, "About the same time … appeared Cerinthus, the leader of another Heresy. Caius, in The Disputation attributed to him, writes respection him: ‘But Cerinthus, by means of revelations which he pretended as if they were showed him by angels, asserting, that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that flesh, i.e. men, again inhabiting Jerusalem, would be subject to desires and pleasures. Being also an enemy to the divine scriptures, with a view to deceive men, he said that there would be a space of a thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivals.’" Eusebius also writes of a tradition passed down by Polycarp regarding an encounter between the Apostle John and Cerinthus in a public bath, "He [Polycarp] says that John the Apostle once entered a bath to wash; but ascertaining that Cerinthus was within, he leaped out of the place and fled from the door, not enduring to enter under the same roof with him, and exhorting those with him to do the same, saying, ‘Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth is within.’"[ 5] Tertullianus is another early church father who attributes chiliasm’s birth to Cerinthus. He writes: "They are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years, who think with the heretic Cerinthus. For the Kingdom of Christ is now eternal in the saints, although the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection." [ 6]
Two of the preeminent creeds of the early church that contain verses that clearly lean towards an amillennial belief are the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Apostles’ Creed contains the words "He [Christ] shall come again to judge the quick and the dead," implying that both judgement and the resurrection will take place at His coming. The Nicene Creed states that Christ "shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." Note that Christ’s kingdom is viewed here as eternal, not as a temporal reign of 1000 years.
By far the early church statement of faith that most vividly presents the early church’s belief in an amillennial, "consummationist" eschatology is The Athanasian Creed. Attributed to Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria and the champion of the Council of Nicaea, around 325 A.D., the creed ends with these words: "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation." Let us analyze these closing verses more carefully to see how they align with the belief system we know today as amillennialism, and how they oppose any belief in an earthly 1000 year reign of Christ.
1. "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead." This simply means that there will be those who are alive as well as those who are dead when He comes (1 Thess. 4:15). Notice that judgement of the living and the dead occurs at His coming (cf. Matt. 25:31-46), not a thousand years after His coming.
The Athanasian Creed and the Early
Church: Clearly Amillennial
By Martin R. Bachicha
Weren't the Early Church Fathers Premillennialists?
In 1976 Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary began a challenging undertaking, writing a masters thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. His professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie of Dallas Seminary fame had boldly written "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church." But upon completing his thesis, Boyd concluded the following in response, "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie's statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis [apostolic age through Justin Martyr]." [ 1] (Quoted by Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 235. [ 2] )
Thomas Albrecht, who has done additional research on this topic, also writes, "some premillennialists had attempted to show that premillennialism was the ‘pervasive view of the earliest orthodox fathers’ (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p.202). But many additional scholars have shown this to be false, including Boyd, D.H. Kromminga, Ned Stonehouse, W.G.T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, and Philip Schaff. According to Boyd, the best that can be said of the early Church father is that they were ‘seminal amillennialists’ (cf. Bahnsen and Gentry, p. 239). The early Church fathers … Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papius, admitted that there were many other Christians who were quite orthodox and not premillennial." [ 3]
The following quote by the early church historian Eusebius from his classic work The History of the Church clearly demonstrates the amillennial, consummationist outlook held by the early church. Speaking of the grandsons of Jude, he writes: "the grandsons of Jude.... When asked [by the Emperor Domitian] about Christ and his kingdom--what it was like, and where it would appear--they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead ...." [The History of the Church by Eusebius] from Charles Ludwig, Ludwig’s Handbook of New Testament Rulers and Cities. [ 4]
Eusebius is one of the early church fathers who most clearly denounces "chiliasm," as premillennialism was then called. In the same work he writes, "About the same time … appeared Cerinthus, the leader of another Heresy. Caius, in The Disputation attributed to him, writes respection him: ‘But Cerinthus, by means of revelations which he pretended as if they were showed him by angels, asserting, that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that flesh, i.e. men, again inhabiting Jerusalem, would be subject to desires and pleasures. Being also an enemy to the divine scriptures, with a view to deceive men, he said that there would be a space of a thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivals.’" Eusebius also writes of a tradition passed down by Polycarp regarding an encounter between the Apostle John and Cerinthus in a public bath, "He [Polycarp] says that John the Apostle once entered a bath to wash; but ascertaining that Cerinthus was within, he leaped out of the place and fled from the door, not enduring to enter under the same roof with him, and exhorting those with him to do the same, saying, ‘Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth is within.’"[ 5] Tertullianus is another early church father who attributes chiliasm’s birth to Cerinthus. He writes: "They are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years, who think with the heretic Cerinthus. For the Kingdom of Christ is now eternal in the saints, although the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection." [ 6]
Two of the preeminent creeds of the early church that contain verses that clearly lean towards an amillennial belief are the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Apostles’ Creed contains the words "He [Christ] shall come again to judge the quick and the dead," implying that both judgement and the resurrection will take place at His coming. The Nicene Creed states that Christ "shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." Note that Christ’s kingdom is viewed here as eternal, not as a temporal reign of 1000 years.
By far the early church statement of faith that most vividly presents the early church’s belief in an amillennial, "consummationist" eschatology is The Athanasian Creed. Attributed to Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria and the champion of the Council of Nicaea, around 325 A.D., the creed ends with these words: "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation." Let us analyze these closing verses more carefully to see how they align with the belief system we know today as amillennialism, and how they oppose any belief in an earthly 1000 year reign of Christ.
1. "He shall come again to judge the living and the dead." This simply means that there will be those who are alive as well as those who are dead when He comes (1 Thess. 4:15). Notice that judgement of the living and the dead occurs at His coming (cf. Matt. 25:31-46), not a thousand years after His coming.
2. "At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies ...." Thus, at Christ’s coming all rise, the good and the evil alike (cf. John 5:28,29, Matt. 12:41,42). Not just the good, and then a thousand years later the wicked.
3. "... and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire." This is a clear reference to Matt. 25:31-46. Athanasius views this as taking place after the resurrection (or translation), making it a post-resurrection judgement. This is in sharp contrast to the dispensational view that Matthew 25:31-46 is only a judgement of "living, mortal Gentiles" who survived the tribulation. Note again that it (i.e. Matt. 25:31-46) is viewed as a judgement of all men, the Jew and the Gentile, the wicked as well as the good.
We must ask, why were the early church fathers so solidly amillennial? The first most obvious answer is that it reflected apostolic teaching, which means they were being obedient to God’s word (Acts 2:42, Ephesians 2:20). Most importantly, it is what the scriptures clearly teach, and being faithful students of the scriptures, they came to this rightful conclusion. Even the late Dr. George Eldon Ladd, a premillennialist, wrote "I admit that the greatest difficulty to any premillennialism is the fact that most of the New Testament pictures the consummation as occurring at Jesus’ parousia." [ 7] Lastly, amillennialism is the single view that most highly glorifies our Lord Jesus and His Second Coming. To demonstrate this point I will ask these questions. Which view glorifies our Lord Jesus more? A view that has the glorified Christ reigning eternally immediately after His advent from the New Heavenly Jerusalem in the glory of His Father (amillennial); or a view that has Jesus reigning temporally (i.e. for 1000 years) from an earthly Jerusalem, surrounded by mortal men, sinners (premillennial)? Which view magnifies His Second Coming more? A view where at His parousia He eternally judges all of mankind, the living and the dead (amillennial), or a view where this judgement doesn’t take place until a 1000 years after His coming (premillennial)? Which is more monumental an advent? A Second Coming where sin is utterly effaced and death is completely destroyed (amillennial)? Or a second coming where sin is not effaced and death is not destroyed until a 1000 years later (premillennial)? The answer is obvious. Let us give glory to our Lord Jesus and believe the true prophetic faith: Amillennialism, the one and only true Christian eschatology.
Footnotes
[1] "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers [Until the Death of Justin Martyr]," unpublished master's thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977, p. 47), quoted in the web article, "Some Questions and Answers on Eschatology," by Thomas Albrecht. [Back]
[2] House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology, by Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. [Back]
[3] Tom Albrecht, "Some Questions and Answers on Eschatology," World Wide Web article. [Back]
[4] Quoted in the article "The Return of Nero" by Gary Stearman, Prophecy in the News, Vol. 16, No. 5, May 1996, p. 6. [Back]
[5] From Eusebius’ Eccleslastical History, Book 3, Chapter 23. Circa A.D. 324. [Back]
[6] From Tertullianus, The Writings of Tertullianus, Vol. 3, p. 433. [Back]
[7] George Eldon Ladd, The Meaning of the Millennium, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977) edited by Robert G. Clouse, pp. 189, 190. [Back]
About the Author:
Martin Bachicha is a native of Albuquerque and is the author of The Kingdom of the Bride, a book on Bible Prophecy.
Martin Bachicha
4908 Sherry Ann Road NW
Albuquerque, NM 87114
He also writes a prophecy newsletter, The Kingdom of the Bride Prophecy Newsletter. To receive your free e-mailed copy, send an e-mail to kbride@iolnm.net.
© Copyright 1999, Martin R. Bachicha, All Rights Reserved
Friday, November 13, 2009
Why Get Tattoos? Soli Deo Gloria!
One of the questions that is posed is this:
If you know that tattoos are a touchy subject and people will have issues with it, why would you still get a tattoo? Aren't you just being rebellious and self centered?
The interesting thing is that it is always put on us, who want tattoos, as the ones being selfish and rebellious by getting tattoos. The exact same things were said as Isaac Watts wrote beautiful hymns to be sung in the churches. He was rebellious and looking to self and no one wanted to play his hymns in their services. The same thing was said of those who wanted to play drums and electric guitars in the church services back in the day. It is always put on those who don't stick to tradition of the church but continue to be progressive as rebellious and selfish. Should we just give in then to those who are uncomfortable with tattoos, new hymns and drums in worship through song? Or, should we be active listeners, careful with our liberty and do all to the glory of God?
I wanted to just give some examples of what one should think of before getting a tattoo and the process I have gone through.
Soli Deo Gloria: For the Glory of God Alone
This thought of Soli Deo Gloria was one that the Reformers continually fought for. Before the Reformers, Rome had put forth the thought that the highest calling for any individual was to be clergy of the church. The Reformers highly disagreed saying that all of life is worship and any man or woman's life and occupation is the calling of God and should reflect God's glory. Taking the Scriptures for what they said about life, the first question posed in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms is:
Q: What is the chief end of man?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
This first part of the answer is taken from the following Scriptures: Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
So, when we ask, "Why get a tattoo?" the first answer needs to be, "to glorify God." This seems stupid to some, but is a reality for those who take God's glory very seriously. But, what does it mean to glorify? To glorify something in the Greek and biblical context, means that when doing something or thinking of someone it means to have a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory. Paul, and the other authors, point to the fact that what we do and what we see should always result in a good opinion of God so that we praise and honor God.
So, how do I glorify God in my tattoos?
1. Humble to the Authority God Has Put Over Me and With Me
I used to be a youth director at my previous church. One of the things I always did when kids would see my tattoos and say that they wanted one is I would tell them to go straight to their parents to discuss this. Their parents are their authority and they should honor them. My first tattoo came at the age of 18 and I was in college. Legally, I could do whatever I wanted to. Spiritually, I wanted input and and the "go ahead" from my father (who was a pastor for most of his adult life). I went to him in submission asking for his permission. He told me that he appreciated my submission to his authority and that, although he personally didn't like tattoos, I could do whatever I wanted to in regards to getting a tattoo. He gave me some things to think about in regards to the tat, such as placement and design, but allowed me to make the decision. To be honest, when someone says I am being rebellious getting a tattoo, it really angers me. The reason is that I was a very rebellious child in many ways, but I was most submissive in getting my tattoo than in any other way in my childhood.
If you are out of the house and on your own and single. Truly think through the fact that you will probably have a spouse some day. Think through the fact that they might hate tattoos and have to "deal" with your art on your body. This doesn't mean to not get one, but very careful on what you get and where so that it doesn't become a hindrance in your future marriage.
If you are married you are under obligation to go to your spouse, your body is theirs. Every tattoo goes through my wife first. She has denied me more than people know on tattoo designs, and I have shown my love for her by knowing my body is hers and that I will not get anything, or change anything, on my body that would make her uncomfortable or hinder her love for me. I completely submit everything to her in regards to my body so that I die to self and live for Christ through her. My wife loves tattoos and loves my new one and can't wait for it to be finished. She literally gets excited for them and does not cringe in any way. Let me say this again, if your spouse does not like tattoos, for whatever reason, do not get one because you are in sin. Glorify God by submitting to the authority God has over you.
2. Glorifying God, by Knowing Your Audience
Know who God is sending you to and know also those around you and their view on any subject. I have thought about this for the future. I have thought, "What if God sends me to a tribe that has pagan thoughts on tattoos in some remote part of the world?" Or, what if I become friends who truly stumbles over the fact of tattoos because of his old self? I will make sure that I do what I can to cover the tattoos in these instances. Even to the fact of using cover up make-up to make sure my exposed tattoos are covered up if I were to go to the jungles or a tribe that has those connotations with tattoos. The reason is that my tattoos are not to "make a statement" or to make a true weaker brother stumble (to get a reading on what I mean by this read this post here). If I preach to a mass audience where I know that it could trip some people up, I will do my best to cover them. But, I will also do my best to know the audience I am teaching to. This is why I also ask ahead of time what to dress like when I go to preach and teach at venues I am not familiar with. I don't want to show up in a suit, when everyone is in shorts, nor do I want to show up in cargo pants when everyone is in suits. I don't want my tattoos to become part of the message I am preaching if they are not the point. I want Jesus to be exalted where I go, not frivolous things like my tattoos, what I wear or what I eat or drink.
3. Glorify God By Getting the Right Design
Most people, when thinking of tattoos, think that they must get one that in some way has a Christian message. I don't. As long as the message or the design doesn't directly point to something contrary to God, like a naked woman, I don't care what someone gets because all lawful things point to God. When I get my tattoos I glorify God because I can see the artist and their creativity and see how that points to the amazing grandeur of the creativity and artistry found in our God and Creator. The same thing happens when I buy a piece of art, look at the sunset or stand at the foot of amazing architecture. These things do not have to have some message about God for them to glorify Him.
The correct thinking is to have these things and their beauty point you to the true beauty in God and cause you to praise and honor Him, not the artist or builder. This same mind set should happen when you eat good food, have great sex, make money, spend time with your kids, pick out something to wear or eat good food. One should understand that all these things point to the glory of God, as does a tattoo. Now, do we all like the same food, same art or same activities? No. So, I don't care if you don't like tattoos because you think they are ugly. This doesn't mean I can't glorify God in something you find distasteful. Same thing applies when you wear your ugly Christmas sweater with bells on it. You find it amusing and cute, I find it ugly and disgusting. You can glorify God in it, I want to throw up on it. Most of the things in this life that one can glorify God through, others will not be able to. But, we should not discount others merely because we don't "get it" or don't like it. Nor should we think we can only glorify God in things if they have God's name, Scripture references or a Jesus fish on it.
So, why do I get tattoos? Is it out of rebellion or selfishness? No. It is because I find the great beauty and artistry found in tattoos to be a shadow of the great beauty and artistry found in my Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer. Through my tattoos I get to praise Jesus. You might hate them, which is fine, but don't think that I get them out of rebellion, it is quite the opposite.
“Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”
Revelation 4:11
Sing to the Lord a new song;
Sing to the Lord, all the earth.
Sing to the Lord, bless His name;
Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.
Tell of His glory among the nations,
His wonderful deeds among all the peoples.
For great is the Lord and greatly to be praised;
He is to be feared above all gods.
For all the gods of the peoples are idols,
But the Lord made the heavens.
Splendor and majesty are before Him,
Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.
Psalm 96:1-6
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Biblical Defenses Against Tattoos
Besides my last posts on "Making a Brother Stumble" and "The Leviticus 19:28 defense" the other two widely used defenses against tattoos would be, "Aren't you ruining the temple of God?" and "Aren't you being worldly?" Besides these arguments, I don't know of any other problems people have with tattoos. If there are other arguments that you have yourself, or that you have heard, please let me know and I can address them.
These two arguments that are easily shown to be illogical when looking at the Christian walk overall, and are really a response by people who don't like tattoos and want to proof text to try and show great biblical knowledge of the subject.
Aren't You Ruining the Temple of God?
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
This passage's focus isn't on smoking, drinking or tattoos (which this verse has been used to take issue with each one of these). This passage is about the Corinthians use of prostitution and how that outward act, is actually spiritually sinful because you have now become one flesh with another, instead of God who bought you with a price.
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 3:16
This passage speaks directly toward one building their temple upon the foundation of Christ or the foundation of idols. Paul tells the Corinthians that they must seek to build their temple of God upon the true Cornerstone and the true foundation which is Christ, not upon the many idols found, not only within Corinth, but within their own selfish ambitions and desires. Specifically, Paul says not to build your foundation upon your own work instead of the work of the Christ. Again...nothing about tattoos.
Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
2 Corinthians 6:16
This passage is specifically speaking on being unequally yoked to unbelievers and the point God makes is that His temple has no business with idols, so therefore, we, who are the new temple of God should not be yoked with those who do not love God. Again, nothing to do with tattoos.
One can see that we are yes, the temple of God and we are to take this seriously. We are to devote ourselves to what the original temple was devoted to, to shine the glory of God to all. This is our purpose. We are to show off the God of Abraham to all people in our outward response to our God.
I, as with others with tattoos, have decided to do some decoration in God's temple to make it as beautiful as we can. This is the same reason that women wear make up and why you shouldn't wear clothes from the 1950's. Just as you can glorify God with what you wear, so you can with tattoos as well. One isn't destroying the temple of God with tattoos, just decorating it. If one thinks you are destroying the body because you might get "ink poisoning" then the same thing could be used on why not to eat sugar, fats and caffeine because all these things can lead to ways in which your body could decay. Ink poisoning is very rare with tattoos and isn't even a defense. It would be like someone having an issue with you driving a car because you might get in an accident and die or destroy the temple of God.
Aren't You Being Worldly?
Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.
1 John 2:15-17
Usually the one that brings forth this argument thinks they have an open and shut case in regards to tattoos. It is their height of argument, saved to put the nail in the coffin. But what is John speaking of? John actually defines what love of the world is. He defines it as:
the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
It is really idolatry shown through lust of the things in this world, not getting tattoos. Now, can a person getting tattoos be worldly? Yes, of course, they can decide to go against their parents and get one, a wife or husband can ignore their spouses wishes and get one because they have a lust for their own life ahead of those in their authority or those that they have become one flesh with. When I was 18, living in my father's house, I went to him to ask his permission to get my first tattoo. I was "of age" and could legally do what I wanted to, but instead went to my father and asked permission. He said, "although I don't like tattoos, I have no issue of you getting one if you want to." Since I have been married, all thoughts of tattoos go through my wife first and prayer to Christ in my decisions. It is through submission that I get my tattoos, not through pride or rebellion.
Some will still say, "Okay, but aren't you just being like the world when you get those?" Being a part of a culture isn't wrong and it isn't worldly. Again, John told us what is worldly in the direct context of his teachings. His reason for writing that passage was to get followers of Christ to do the will of God and worship and give Him glory, instead of following the lusts of the world and giving self glory. If merely getting a tattoo is being "of the world" then so is buying a big house, driving a car, wearing a suit (or not wearing a suit), putting on make up, wearing cowboy hats in Montana and wearing a Seahawks hat at Qwest Field. That's what the world is, and we look like the world, so it must be sin. No. We are just displaying the culture that we live in.
This is what Christ did. He lived among those and wore and looked like what the culture reflected. That's why Jesus probably had a beard, wore sandals and a funky long robe and undergarment. Because that was what his culture reflected. He would look very different if he were walking amongst us today. Don't think Jesus has some dress on if he visited us today. He would be a representative of our culture, as are we. What you wear or look like doesn't make you worldly, it just reflects your culture. When we went to the South last year, it was funny what that culture reflects down there. 8 out of every 10 women were wearing those velour jogging suits. It made Stacy and I laugh because no one would be caught dead in one of those up here in Seattle. It was definitely a part of their culture.
Just because tattoos haven't been a part of the culture that you grew up in, doesn't make it worldly. Sadly, I sometimes wish I could use that logic so I could make more fun of those that wear velour jogging suits and call it sin.
These are the main arguments against tattoos and hopefully you can see how shallow these arguments are. We are to be the temples of God, living in our culture, displaying the glory of our God. If we were to take these verses as some would want, they would actually take on the dogmas of another major religion: Islam. They dress and do much of the same things that Mohammad's culture took on. That is what Christians are trying to do as they make these Scriptures their proof texts against tattoos, how people dress or look like in general.
I just can't wait for them to start wearing long robes so that their theology fits their practice.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What Does it Mean to Make a Brother Stumble?
One of the things that always comes up when you speak of tattoos, smoking, drinking, et al is the issue of making a brother stumble to show why one should abstain from doing those things at all. When one proof texts and reads current culture into the passages, they seem to have a great point and one that kept me under a heavy yoke for some time. What actually ended up happening is that this so called "weaker brother" kept me under his yoke of conscience instead of me being able to seek out Christ and his easy yoke and burden that is light. I kept trying to refrain from certain things because I was always worried that I would make a brother stumble and was so consumed by this, my life was more about the weaker brother and his issues than the glorifying of God in my actions and actually loving the weaker brother.
We have extremes here that need to be pointed out. One extreme is like the one mentioned above, where we worry about everything, whether it is sin or not and abstain from it all. The other extreme is we say, "screw the weaker brother" and we do whatever we want without care. Like most orthopraxy, extremes suck and fly in the face of Christ and his cross and, so, we need to find the correct balance and test it to Scripture. I want to do some defining to search out how we should live within the context of the weaker brother and what it means to make him stumble.
First, what is a "weaker brother"?
We find the main passages concerning the weaker brother in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 and also in Romans 14. The weaker brother is the one who wishes to abstain from certain things. They are not the mature in the body, but they are the weak needing care. These people would be those who abstain from things that are not sinful, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, getting tattoos and of course eating meat sacrificed to idols. But, if you know the context of 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and Romans 14 we are not speaking of people who have merely been told that these things were sinful, but have a deep bond that ties the conscience to them. The weaker brother would be someone who has been addicted to smoking or alcohol, or who has a family history of addiction to these things. The weaker brother would be someone who came from a tribe who used to tattoo themselves for the sake of their pagan gods. The weaker brother is one who was in an idolatrous nation that sacrificed meat to gods for worship. These things are deeply entrenched in who they are and what they are about. These things identify them with the "old self."
The weaker brother is NOT someone who has issue with these things because of their culture and how they were brought up. One is not a mere weaker brother because they have always been taught that smoking is a sin or that drinking alcohol is a sin. Paul goes much deeper than this and is found when he uses the term to "destroy" the weaker brother (which we will handle later).
Paul and Jerusalem Council are dealing with a much deeper issue than someone not liking meat sacrificed to idols, they were dealing with an issue that was deeply ingrained in the people that practiced idolatry in a way that was demonic and part of every day life that associated one with the devil. Again, it would be the same as getting a tattoo for the dead in Leviticus 19:28 to worship some pagan deity. This was binding on the conscience, not because it was "odd" to them, or they were uncomfortable with it, but they were dealing with demonic opposition and something that identified them with their old self when their father was the devil.
So, the weaker brother is not merely some nutcase that wants you to abstain from something they don't like, the weaker brother is someone who is coming from an old life in sin, that is dealing with those things associated directly with their sin. Again, think of pagan worship in sacrifices when thinking of 1 Corinthians 8,10 and Romans 14.
Making the Weaker Brother Stumble
Now that we see what is means to be a weaker brother, we need to look at making that brother stumble. This term stumble is used almost synonymously with Paul using the term "destroy". Paul isn't speaking of making someone look at you in a light that is odd. It isn't making someone uncomfortable, but it is literally making them stumble into sin. It would be like you handing someone a beer that you know is an alcoholic and telling them to drink. You, in your freedom, have made the weaker brother stumble or have destroyed them. The thought is putting something (a rock) in the road that they are walking on so that they will trip and severely hurt themselves.
People use this for all sorts of things, as though we must have a swivel on our heads to make sure people don't look at us and think we are sinning. This isn't what Paul is speaking on. If this is the case, then Jesus was a sinner. He did things all the time that made people think he was a sinner, but he didn't make them sin. Think of the Pharisees of those that wear suits to church, don't drink, don't smoke, don't play cards, don't watch certain movies, listen to certain music. They do this so that they "will not make someone stumble", but in reality are showing that your sanctification and righteousness comes in what you don't do instead of whom you trust in. Jesus was not for this. What is interesting is that the term "stumble" can be both positive and negative. You can make someone stumble into sin, or make them stumble into righteousness.
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,"and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
1 Peter 2:6-8
This is the point that no one actually brings up. If someone is trying to be self righteous in their abstention, the best thing you can do is be a stumbling block to them so that they can see that Christ is the corner stone of their faith, not their abstention for self righteousness. This brother, that abstains for the sake of self righteousness (which none of them will admit) is not the weaker brother, but the prideful brother that needs to be shown their sinful acts. This is why Jesus didn't care if he drank in public, ate with the sinners and loved the hookers. He did it partly to show the self righteous Pharisees their stupidity. We find further evidence of this when Peter has his vision and then eats with the Gentiles. Notice what the self righteous Jews do:
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Acts 11:2
Did Peter then decide to abstain from eating with them? No, he corrected their self righteous thoughts by telling them the vision of God and using this an opportunity to show the gospel to them. Here is the key. Someone who loves Jesus and not their self righteous deeds will react to this by not condemning the brother living in his freedom but will praise God.
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
Acts 11:18
Could this have been a stone of stumbling for these Jews? Yes. Did Peter refrain, or teach? He taught. Their reaction is an insight to their heart towards the love of God. They reject their self righteousness and cling to their new found Saviour.
So, Now What?
How are we to handle this then? You will notice that Paul has a huge point that he makes when speaking of refraining, and it does not mean that he will refrain always, only when he is knowingly among those whom bears a conscience against meat sacrificed to idols. People like to use Paul's hyperbolic term to bear witness against this when Paul says, "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." Paul is using this in speaking to someone he is directly in relationship with at all times, not for the sake of believers out there somewhere who have issues with this. Meaning, if Timothy had issues with this, Paul would never eat meat in fellowship with Timothy. He doesn't mean, he will literally never touch meat again. We see this clearly in the following:
If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake — the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:27-31
Paul states to enjoy your freedom, but to refrain when among someone who has a conscience against something. So, if I am going to a nation of tribes who once used tattoos to worship their god, I will cover up my tattoos. I will do this because this is something that is personal to them and hard for them to take. I will also cover up my tattoos if I go into a home where I know tattoos used to be a way for the person to sin against God in rebellion and they are trying to refrain from such things. I do this with those I KNOWLINGLY have deep issues with certain things that is related and identified to their old life of sin. So is the case with having a vegan over to my house, an alcoholic or someone who was addicted to smoking.
But, it doesn't stop here. You don't just refrain when you see these people, but you take the opportunity to teach them. You must teach the weaker, and not allow them to "turn you" into their weaker conscience. This was huge for the ministry of Christ. He was the one teaching the weaker, the weaker were not teaching him to turn to their ways. So, we should deal with the gospel with these people and love and aid them to the grace and freedom found at the cross.
Refrain out of love and teach out of love so that they may be won to the victory of the cross. There is a balance here. But, to throw out the "you might make a brother stumble" has become another way to control the actions of others to make them think they are more righteous. This is sin and contrary to the gospel. Also, those who freely do whatever they want without taking consideration of the TRUE weaker brother and don't take the opportunity to teach them in word and action what the Gospel is truly about, also sin.
We must live and teach the gospel to others without allowing them to bound up our actions so that we find the gospel as a restrictive gospel instead of a freeing one.
"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Matthew 11:29-30
Read More......
We have extremes here that need to be pointed out. One extreme is like the one mentioned above, where we worry about everything, whether it is sin or not and abstain from it all. The other extreme is we say, "screw the weaker brother" and we do whatever we want without care. Like most orthopraxy, extremes suck and fly in the face of Christ and his cross and, so, we need to find the correct balance and test it to Scripture. I want to do some defining to search out how we should live within the context of the weaker brother and what it means to make him stumble.
First, what is a "weaker brother"?
We find the main passages concerning the weaker brother in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 and also in Romans 14. The weaker brother is the one who wishes to abstain from certain things. They are not the mature in the body, but they are the weak needing care. These people would be those who abstain from things that are not sinful, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, getting tattoos and of course eating meat sacrificed to idols. But, if you know the context of 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and Romans 14 we are not speaking of people who have merely been told that these things were sinful, but have a deep bond that ties the conscience to them. The weaker brother would be someone who has been addicted to smoking or alcohol, or who has a family history of addiction to these things. The weaker brother would be someone who came from a tribe who used to tattoo themselves for the sake of their pagan gods. The weaker brother is one who was in an idolatrous nation that sacrificed meat to gods for worship. These things are deeply entrenched in who they are and what they are about. These things identify them with the "old self."
The weaker brother is NOT someone who has issue with these things because of their culture and how they were brought up. One is not a mere weaker brother because they have always been taught that smoking is a sin or that drinking alcohol is a sin. Paul goes much deeper than this and is found when he uses the term to "destroy" the weaker brother (which we will handle later).
Paul and Jerusalem Council are dealing with a much deeper issue than someone not liking meat sacrificed to idols, they were dealing with an issue that was deeply ingrained in the people that practiced idolatry in a way that was demonic and part of every day life that associated one with the devil. Again, it would be the same as getting a tattoo for the dead in Leviticus 19:28 to worship some pagan deity. This was binding on the conscience, not because it was "odd" to them, or they were uncomfortable with it, but they were dealing with demonic opposition and something that identified them with their old self when their father was the devil.
So, the weaker brother is not merely some nutcase that wants you to abstain from something they don't like, the weaker brother is someone who is coming from an old life in sin, that is dealing with those things associated directly with their sin. Again, think of pagan worship in sacrifices when thinking of 1 Corinthians 8,10 and Romans 14.
Making the Weaker Brother Stumble
Now that we see what is means to be a weaker brother, we need to look at making that brother stumble. This term stumble is used almost synonymously with Paul using the term "destroy". Paul isn't speaking of making someone look at you in a light that is odd. It isn't making someone uncomfortable, but it is literally making them stumble into sin. It would be like you handing someone a beer that you know is an alcoholic and telling them to drink. You, in your freedom, have made the weaker brother stumble or have destroyed them. The thought is putting something (a rock) in the road that they are walking on so that they will trip and severely hurt themselves.
People use this for all sorts of things, as though we must have a swivel on our heads to make sure people don't look at us and think we are sinning. This isn't what Paul is speaking on. If this is the case, then Jesus was a sinner. He did things all the time that made people think he was a sinner, but he didn't make them sin. Think of the Pharisees of those that wear suits to church, don't drink, don't smoke, don't play cards, don't watch certain movies, listen to certain music. They do this so that they "will not make someone stumble", but in reality are showing that your sanctification and righteousness comes in what you don't do instead of whom you trust in. Jesus was not for this. What is interesting is that the term "stumble" can be both positive and negative. You can make someone stumble into sin, or make them stumble into righteousness.
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,"and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
1 Peter 2:6-8
This is the point that no one actually brings up. If someone is trying to be self righteous in their abstention, the best thing you can do is be a stumbling block to them so that they can see that Christ is the corner stone of their faith, not their abstention for self righteousness. This brother, that abstains for the sake of self righteousness (which none of them will admit) is not the weaker brother, but the prideful brother that needs to be shown their sinful acts. This is why Jesus didn't care if he drank in public, ate with the sinners and loved the hookers. He did it partly to show the self righteous Pharisees their stupidity. We find further evidence of this when Peter has his vision and then eats with the Gentiles. Notice what the self righteous Jews do:
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Acts 11:2
Did Peter then decide to abstain from eating with them? No, he corrected their self righteous thoughts by telling them the vision of God and using this an opportunity to show the gospel to them. Here is the key. Someone who loves Jesus and not their self righteous deeds will react to this by not condemning the brother living in his freedom but will praise God.
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
Acts 11:18
Could this have been a stone of stumbling for these Jews? Yes. Did Peter refrain, or teach? He taught. Their reaction is an insight to their heart towards the love of God. They reject their self righteousness and cling to their new found Saviour.
So, Now What?
How are we to handle this then? You will notice that Paul has a huge point that he makes when speaking of refraining, and it does not mean that he will refrain always, only when he is knowingly among those whom bears a conscience against meat sacrificed to idols. People like to use Paul's hyperbolic term to bear witness against this when Paul says, "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." Paul is using this in speaking to someone he is directly in relationship with at all times, not for the sake of believers out there somewhere who have issues with this. Meaning, if Timothy had issues with this, Paul would never eat meat in fellowship with Timothy. He doesn't mean, he will literally never touch meat again. We see this clearly in the following:
If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake — the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:27-31
Paul states to enjoy your freedom, but to refrain when among someone who has a conscience against something. So, if I am going to a nation of tribes who once used tattoos to worship their god, I will cover up my tattoos. I will do this because this is something that is personal to them and hard for them to take. I will also cover up my tattoos if I go into a home where I know tattoos used to be a way for the person to sin against God in rebellion and they are trying to refrain from such things. I do this with those I KNOWLINGLY have deep issues with certain things that is related and identified to their old life of sin. So is the case with having a vegan over to my house, an alcoholic or someone who was addicted to smoking.
But, it doesn't stop here. You don't just refrain when you see these people, but you take the opportunity to teach them. You must teach the weaker, and not allow them to "turn you" into their weaker conscience. This was huge for the ministry of Christ. He was the one teaching the weaker, the weaker were not teaching him to turn to their ways. So, we should deal with the gospel with these people and love and aid them to the grace and freedom found at the cross.
Refrain out of love and teach out of love so that they may be won to the victory of the cross. There is a balance here. But, to throw out the "you might make a brother stumble" has become another way to control the actions of others to make them think they are more righteous. This is sin and contrary to the gospel. Also, those who freely do whatever they want without taking consideration of the TRUE weaker brother and don't take the opportunity to teach them in word and action what the Gospel is truly about, also sin.
We must live and teach the gospel to others without allowing them to bound up our actions so that we find the gospel as a restrictive gospel instead of a freeing one.
"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Matthew 11:29-30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
