4 Hyper-Grace Myths: God Loves Everybody, Backslidden Christians, Sinners Saved by Grace, and it’s wrong to Fear God
As some know, I am dating a fellow Southern Baptist named Susan. We did not meet in the same church, so we are presently going to both by alternating back and forth. This post is sparked by the fact that I have been able to offend parishioners in both churches via Sunday school discussions. I did this at Susan’s church first while we were discussing “backslidden” Christians during Sunday school. I suggested to the class that it is wrong to give “backslidden” Christians assurance of their supposed salvation while in a state of perpetual rebellion; it was not well received.
Then in Sunday school last week while we were at my church I repeated my offensive behavior by suggesting that God does not Love everybody following a comment by someone in the class to the contrary. And while I am at it, I would like to throw in two more Christian clichés that I have suffered by throughout my Christian life: we are “sinners” saved by grace, and as Christians, we shouldn’t have any fear of God.
But before I begin, why does it matter? My answer to this question is my belief that how we think about these issues has a profound effect on evangelism and discipleship.
First, does God love everybody? Do we really want to tell unbelievers that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life? I understand the angle: “if you would just give your life to the Lord, you would find true happiness!” “Don’t you understand? God loves you!” (assuming that knowledge will motivate people to be saved).
And what about John 3:16? “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” If you think about it, this verse probably means that God’s love could potentially love everyone without distinction, but is conditional upon their belief in His Son. The second part of the verse seems to add that condition. Why do I say that? Because of what Psalms 11:5 says: “The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” In regard to the righteous and unrighteous, Romans 9:13 says: “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”
Even those who want to believe that God loves everyone must concede that God does not love unbelievers the same way that He loves us as believers. Matthew 7:23 records the words Christ will say to some: “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Of course, this doesn’t mean that Christ never knew who they were, but rather refers to intimacy (Genesis 4:1, Gen. 19:5, 8). Christ never knew them or loved them intimately. So, to simply tell unbelievers that God loves them is to allow them to assume God loves them in the same way he loves believers which at the very least is false. Furthermore, it is a half-truth because it is also true that God hates them as well, so to only mention the love part is only half of the truth. It should go without saying that it is very important for unbelievers to have a truthful and accurate picture of their standing before God while being evangelized.
Secondly, should we say anything to professing Christians to give them assurance of salvation when they are living a disobedient lifestyle? Should we just label them “backslidden” and patiently wait for God to deal with them when he pleases, if at all? Should our reasoning sound like the following?: “Well, at least they are saved. It will all be good in the end. Besides, we shouldn’t judge.” But isn’t giving them assurance of their standing with God making a judgment as well? So, do we want our judgments to be truthful, or merely positive? Actually, I wouldn’t make any judgment; I would follow Scripture which would certainly forbid giving comfort, or encouragement to people living in a lifestyle of disobedience to God.
The Scriptures are clear; a disobedient lifestyle is indicative of unbelievers regardless of their claims otherwise: “Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous” (1John 3:7). “By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother” (1John 3:10). The first chapter of 2Peter also makes it clear that we make our calling and election “sure” by “adding” spiritual virtues to our life. Therefore, disobedient persons who have assurance of salvation are a biblical anomaly. Do I believe that many well meaning Christians are unwittingly making some unbelievers as comfortable as possible until they one day wake-up forever separated from God? I say with great concern, yes.
Thirdly, are we “sinners saved by grace”? No, we are not. We are born again (John 3:7), new creatures (2Corintians 5:17), who sin at times (1John 1:8). There is a significant difference. “Sinners” are those who have a life characterized by sin; that’s not us. The English dictionary defines “sinner” via the synonym “evildoer.” We are not evildoers, that’s a biblical description of the unregenerate. Clichés such as this are not healthy nomenclatures among Christians and send the wrong message. Any phrase that downplays the vast difference in spiritual abilities between the saints and unbelievers tends to neutralize Christians. This vast difference between the two is a major theme in the book of Ephesians. If the distinction is blurred, Christians will behave accordingly. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
Lastly, is it wrong for Christians to fear God? Francis Chan, in his book, “Crazy Love” describes his own fear of God as a time in his life when he was spiritually immature. Now that he is supposedly mature, he describes his present fear of God as “reverent intimacy.” Likewise, throughout out my own Christian life I have been continually taught that “fear” means “reverence.” This eliminates a very important sanctification element in the lives of believers: a healthy fear of God.
Throughout the New Testament, Christ and the Holy Spirit use fear of God as a positive motivator for proper behavior and spiritual growth. In fact, Christ commands Christians to fear God in Matthew 10:28; “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” It is also interesting to note that no fear of God is usually associated with unbelievers: “Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes” (Psalm 36:1). Furthermore, Philippians 2:12 should make it clear what kind of fear is being talked about: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling….” The word “trembling” should adequately qualify the word “fear” in this passage of Scripture. Here again, we have an imperative to fear God.
In the Apostolic Age, Christians might have been getting overly caught-up in “saved by grace alone.” Whatever the reason was exactly, God sent the church a wake-up call via Ananias and Sephira (Acts 5:1-11). The results are then stated in verses 11, “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events,” and 13, “No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people.” And also 14, “Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number” [obviously, those who really meant business]. In addition to this point, Proverbs 1:7 says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Throughout proverbs and Psalms, fear of God is associated with wisdom that unbelievers do not have. Throughout the New Testament, fear of God is used as a motivator to do what’s right: “and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you” (1 Thess. 4:6); “Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:9); “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 11:29).
Therefore, does Francis Chan and many others like him do the church harm by teaching that Christians shouldn’t fear God? Yes they do, obviously. To the contrary, they should have the heart of the Psalmist: “Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD” (34:11).
In a time such as ours when an overemphasis on the gospel among the already redeemed replaces discipleship, Christians are living on a steady diet of sound bites that taste good. I hope this post provokes many to rather “…. demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2Corintians 10:6).
paul
What Really Happened at Coral Ridge: Heavy-Handed Leadership is Part of the Gospel Sanctification Mystique
I have plowed through massive amounts of data / articles regarding the Coral Ridge Presbyterian split / controversy, and wow, what a gargantuan mass of theories, opinions, and “he said – she said.” But what happened at Coral Ridge is really very simple, and is being played out throughout the country on a continual basis. Actually, in all the information I consumed, the crux of the matter can be boiled down to a few excerpts.
First, the key to understanding what happened there is the theology of the new pastor, Tullian Tchividjian, hereafter referred to as “TT” (who in the world would ever name their child Tullian Tchividjian?). TT is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification, hereafter referred to as “GS.” One writer refuted an accusation against TT (by one person in the small group of dissenters who tried to have him expelled as the pastor) that he has a distorted view of the gospel. But in supposedly refuting that, he quotes TT as saying the following:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel.”
In this quote, we see the theology of GS and why it caused big trouble at Coral Ridge. Notice that TT says plainly that he has come to a scriptural understanding of the gospel that “the vast majority of professing Christians” don’t share. Think about that statement, I mean really think about it. He is saying that he was once among “the vast majority of *professing* [that word is no accident] Christians” who HAVE THE GOSPEL WRONG! This is the mentality of GS proponents: they think they are on the cutting edge of a reformation that is saving Evangelicalism from a false gospel. What else can be surmised from this statement?
As a result, leaders in the GS movement do not intend to play nicely with papal minions of the Synergistic Dark Age, and they routinely kick butt and take names. The pattern is the same: new pastors assume leadership in a church that doesn’t know what GS is, and the church takes it for granted that their theology is orthodox. Then once in, they replace present leadership with those of like mind, and begin to make vast and rapid changes because they see that church as a bastion of falsehood. Then, dissenters are mercilessly mowed down and muzzled, usually via church discipline.
In all cases, the dissenters don’t have a full understanding of what they are dealing with, they just know something isn’t right. I saw this exact same GS pattern play out in a church in Dayton, Ohio, and it’s also exactly what happened at Coral Ridge. My thoughts on this were confirmed by a telephone interview with a person involved with the protesters at Coral Ridge. However, the particular church in Dayton didn’t have the ecclesiastical safeguards afforded Presbyterians, and some dissenting members actually fled to other states because of the intensity of the backlash from the GS leadership, and trust me, I’m not exaggerating. Other Christians have told me that their leaders simply refuse to discuss the issue with them, rightly observing that there is no premise for agreement when one party holds to a grammatical view of interpretation verses redemptive.
Before I move on, some of what I am saying here can be seen in the letter that Coral Ridge dissenters issued to the rest of the congregation in an attempt to have TT removed as their pastor: http://blackandwhiteministries.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-pastors-daughter-raises-mutiny.html
In conclusion, much of the GS doctrine can be seen in TT’s statement if one observes closely and believes that words mean things. Instead of moving on to “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded,” we are supposed to move “more deeply” into the gospel. GS teaches that a deeper focus on the gospel results in Christ obeying biblical imperatives for us. TT has also insinuated this in other statements. You can also see the GS element of continual redemption (or the idea that Christians are continually re-saved) in this part of his statement:
“After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel” [then what do you do with John 13:8-10 ?].
Furthermore, the gospel is monergistic, so if we are sanctified by the gospel, that means we can do no more to be sanctified than we could do to be justified. Therefore, GS can be nothing more than a *let go and let God* theology. Also, the relationship or role of the Law would be the same, making it an Antinomian doctrine. Not being obligated to keep the Law or completely unable is the same difference.
paul
Gospel-Driven Confusion
I appreciate Greg Gibson’s blog which will often list a series of relevant articles for “busy disciples” (http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ). Many times, the articles concern “New Calvinism” which also includes those who hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification (or “gospel-driven” sanctification). This is an antinomian doctrine that synthesizes justification and sanctification, covertly nullifying the use of the Law in the sanctification process.
The most recent list (of which are not necessarily the shared view of Greg Gibson) are excellent examples of the confusion GS is unleashing on the contemporary church. The first article is about a church that executed a popular trend among GS based churches: excommunicating non-active members. Gibson posted the link written by Jonathan Leeman of “9 Marks” blog, which is connected to Capital Hill Baptist Church. CHBC became heroes in the Neo-reformed movement when they excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance, so their interest in interviewing the pastor from the latest church to out-perform them is understandable.
But unbelievably, it quickly became apparent from the twenty or so comments attached to the article, and the authors feedback that it is unclear as to whether or not the parishioners were actually excommunicated or not. It all began with the following apt observation in the comment section:
“….membership on a church role is NOT, absolutely NOT, the same as membership in the Body of Christ. The church membership role is a fallible, human attempt to count members and be more efficient in ministry. That’s great. I’m for church membership and church roles. I support regenerate church membership. I also support culling through roles and taking names off the role because they are inactive and unresponsive. But that is distinctly different from the real theological issues behind the labels “excommunication” and “unrepentant sin.” Those two terms need to be used with care and precision. And we are adding to Scripture to justify applauding their use here….It’s STILL assuming leaps and bounds over what Scripture says. Surely this Catholic view of the Scriptures is NOT what 9 Marks believes [hmmm, I wouldn’t be sure of that]. This is labeling something unrepentant sin that Scripture does not label sin. It’s inferring and implying from Scripture with the result of pronouncing EXCOMMUNICATION (a VERY serious word) over people who may just have never gotten the letter. Or people who never in their years of attending that church under leadership with a lesser view of membership were ever taught to embrace. It’s a sloppy use of church discipline [amen brother!!], which is a very needed practice in the church. This undermines the good use of church discipline for every congregation that desires to use it as God intended for the health of the Body. I implore you again, for the health of the churches who read this and are affected by the leadership here, please correct this article or take it down”[you go boy!!!].
I agree, but then things really start getting crazy when another reader notes the following about the same article:
“If those of you commenting would bother to read the article, you would find that the term ‘excommunication’ wasn’t part of the response, but part of a question posed by Mr. Leeman to Mr. King.
Mr. Leeman asks:
“David, I heard that you recently excommunicated 500 members from your church. Can this be right?”
Mr. King responded:
“What you heard is only partly true. We actually removed 575 members”.
Here, this reader corrects the other readers by pointing out that Leeman called it excommunication, but the pastor of the church that removed the members supposedly corrected him by using a different word. But then the other readers rightly correct him by pointing out that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the interview is that the members were, in fact, excommunicated:
“Well apparently according to the last statement by Mr Leeman of his desire that some of the 575 would ‘repent and attend healthy churches’ so based on this it leads one to assume that all these people are indeed excommunicated to the fullest extent and definition of term, and not just ‘removed from the membership role’….Mr. King did not correct him when Mr. Leeman asked about excommunication. He only corrected the numbers. Mr. King is saying, ‘Well actually we excommunicated 75 more people than you said.’ The point remains that excommunication is an unfortunate term to be used here and this article should be taken down or corrected.”
After this comment, the author of the post then suggested that all of the confusion was merely a matter of semantics regarding the definition of different terms. He was then corrected as follows:
“I agree with your definition of excommunication and am using the term in the same way. I take issue with the assumption of ‘unrepentant sin.’ The process he outlines makes not attending their church an ‘unrepentant sin.’ And if they could not document by people’s responses that they were indeed attending their church or another church (I hope at least that), they were LABELED unrepentant. I don’t mind them removing them from the roles. But it is not sin to stop attending a particular church. I have moved churches several times since college, all but once because I moved cities. I likely wouldn’t have gotten a letter even if they had tried to contact me. If they had labeled me unrepentant, it would have been slander. I’d be much more comfortable with this if either 1) you removed the terms excommunication and/or unrepentant sin OR 2) Mr. King clarifies that people weren’t labeled unrepentant simply because they didn’t respond to his letters to them. Because that is a BIG jump over a number of restraining principles in Scripture.”
The author then responded with the usual, long, tortured GS-type response. This sad, confusing commentary can be read in its entirety here: http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ
Actually, I like Camile’s response the best:
“This is simply appalling. I understand the need to ‘tidy’ a membership list. That happens.
But to ‘excommunicate’ people simply because they moved away or even joined another church? Talk about assigning negative intent.
I hope it’s sobering for you. I do. This has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospel.”
P.s., Camile, it’s what happens when you think every verse in the Bible is about redemption.
But in another article listed along with the one above, the confusion continues, and this time at the hands of one of the fathers of Gospel Sanctification, the lovable Jerry Bridges. The second article is entitled “ 12 Steps to Identifying Your Functional Saviors” and the author begins the post this way:
“Whatever we direct our affections, energies, and hopes towards is our object of worship. Our heart needs Jesus; our flesh craves idols. This is why growing in love for Christ requires daily execution of idols. But how do we know what our idols are?”
This is the GS belief that we change by emptying our hearts of idols which leaves a void in our heart that Jesus then fills with himself resulting in Christ obeying for us. This was all hatched by David Powlison in the early 80’s and articulated by Paul David Tripp in his book “How People Change.” Powlison came up with a method to determine what those idols are by asking ourselves “X-ray questions.”
The author then shares a sample of 12 primary X-ray questions that can supposedly be used to determine heart idols from the Jerry Bridges book, “The Bookends of the Christian Life”:
1. I am preoccupied with ________.
2. If only ________, then I would be happy.
3. I get my sense of significance from ________.
4. I would protect and preserve ________ at any cost.
5. I fear losing ________.
6. The thing that gives me greatest pleasure is ________.
7. When I lose ________, I get angry, resentful, frustrated, anxious, or depressed.
8. For me, life depends on ________.
9. The thing I value more than anything in the world is ________.
10. When I daydream, my mind goes to________.
11. The best thing I can think of is ________.
12. The thing that makes me want to get out of bed in the morning is ________.
In an unusual display of discernment by readers, some raised questions about such a notion. For example: if I am preoccupied with my daughters wedding the week prior to the big day does that mean I have heart idols? If I am preoccupied with my wife being in labor, does that mean I love her more than I love Christ? The whole goofy notion of determining heart idols through asking ourselves “X-ray questions” brings up more questions by thinking Christians than could ever be answered; like, should “Christ” be written in every blank? Apparently, the propagators of the method don’t even know; Jered, the author of the post, responded this way:
“There’s nothing wrong with cherishing family, wanting to protect family, being sad if someone in our family is hurt of suffering, etc. I don’t think that’s what the list is getting at.
Nor is it saying we should put ‘Jesus’ into the blanks [well then, what should go in there?]
It’s just a general list, taken altogether, that can be diagnostic of where our ultimate treasure is. No need to absolutize each question or over-think it. Let’s just be conscious to have Christ as our ultimate treasure, which means being aware of our natural drift to idolatry.
The cool thing is that this doesn’t mean we stop enjoying or loving good things. This means actually loving our families better and enjoying good things (like work, sex, sports, etc.) more than if they were our actual treasure.”
Huh? So, they’re diagnostic questions, but the answers are not definitive? Welcome to the confused, nebulous world of Gospel Sanctification, and Gospel-Driven confusion.
paul
Charles Stanley now Embracing Antinomian Distortion of Galatians 2:20
As I was driving down the road this afternoon I was delighted to hear “In Touch” with Dr. Charles Stanley. Yes, I know, there has always been some issues with Stanley, but I still enjoy listening to him. However, I was a bit surprised to hear what he had to say during his “Stages of Our Christian Life” series. If I remember correctly, he was on stage seven, the stage where we supposedly realize the significance of, and here we go again, Galatians 2:20.
Stanley then proceeded to exegete this verse in the same way others of our day do; namely, contemporary Antinomians such as David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, Tim Keller, Justin Taylor, Tim Lane, John Piper, Micheal Horton, DA Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, and Jerry Bridges, to name a few. JC Ryle called it the “Christ in us doctrine,” and such Antinomiam doctrines of his day prompted him to write his “Twenty Letters on Holiness.” I go into this in some detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lW
Basically, the doctrine teaches that we (believers) are still dead in trespasses and sins, and that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ who obeys for us, since we are “dead and can do nothing” (Paul Tripp, “How People Change” 2006). Galatians 2:20 can be interpreted that way via a cursory observation. Stanley clearly stated during the message I heard that the only life in us is Christ. To some degree that is true, but the fact is overstated in a way that refutes the biblical truth that we are “new creatures” and “born again” unto spiritual life. Some proponents of the doctrine, also known as Gospel Sanctification, even promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation (totally depraved).
Stanley went on to say that this “truth” is liberating because we can finally cease from putting forth effort in the sanctification process. That’s what he plainly said. He shared what his thoughts were after embracing this “truth” and seeing their church building for the first time afterward: “Lord, I don’t have to do anything to build this ministry, you do it all.” Furthermore, Stanley then explained that Christians don’t have to put forth any effort to obey God, but rather passively “yield” to God’s truth / power. JC Ryle contended against this exact same element of “yielding” in the “Christ in us” doctrine, and objected to this concept as a replacement for exertion by us in the sanctification process.
I address this doctrine as it is being taught by those mentioned above in the following post: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ
paul
Some Thoughts on Christian Liberty: Specifically in Regard to Drinking Alcohol
Lead singer / songwriter Mark Hall said well last week at the Casting Crowns concert that Christian liberty often becomes a question of how far we can push the envelope. In other words, “what can I (me, me, me) do or not do in this (fill in the blank) situation.” In more words, the issue of Christian liberty often muddles the fact that Law-keeping is intimately entwined in love which is the essence of self-denial / self-sacrifice. “God so loved the world, that He GAVE His only Son.” When it comes to justification, we don’t have to keep any of the Law and couldn’t even if we wanted to. In fact, any attempt to be justified by keeping the Law (or thinking you are “good” enough to enter heaven) is a rejection of God’s gift. Sanctification is another story; in sanctification (setting apart for a specific purpose), we keep the Law to love God and others.
This is what Paul said about Christian liberty: “Everything is permissible—but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others”(1Corinthians 10:23,24).
Because the primary goal of Law-keeping is love, and the essence of love is self-denial / self-sacrifice, we are commanded in Scripture to forfeit our right to partake in what is lawful if it would offend another believer or cause a new believer to violate their conscience which may not be biblically trained.
This brings me to an issue that God has dealt with in my own life recently. Moderate drinking, though lawful, is not beneficial for those in my life, but this is not the trite matter we make it in today’s super-grace mentality. However, to say that moderate drinking is against the Law of God or a biblical principle is patently untrue, and what is true matters. Look, forget all of that stuff about the disciples drinking alcohol because the water was bad in the Middle East during the first century. You don’t even need a course in Bible History to refute that; just read the historical account of Jesus talking to the woman at the well. Besides that, one of the biblical qualifications of an elder (which are very high) is that they are “not a drunkard” (or drinking alcohol in excess. I Tim. 3:3, Titus 1:7). Why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit plainly say “drinker of wine” rather than specifying drunkenness? In fact, Paul goes on to say: “Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in *much* wine….”[emphasis mine]. I’m sorry, but that alone ends the argument though many more biblical arguments could be introduced.
Not acknowledging a true perspective on any given biblical principle always leads to a slippery slope resulting in extremes. I once visited a widow who was confronted by her pastor for working at a restaurant that served alcohol. Does that same pastor shop at Krogers? Does he fly United?The situation led to an unnecessary offense that resulted in her leaving that particular church. Also, while some Christians will not eat at Applebees because they serve liquor, they will go to Bob Evans instead, and rip the waitress from top to bottom for not serving them to their expectations. I even know of Christians who will leave the waitress fifteen-cents to add insult to injury. But Law-forbid that we would eat at a restaurant where drunks know more about mercy than we do. Actually, I leave bigger tips when I get lousy service; it’s called “undeserved merit,” sound familiar? Here is my point: our goal as Christians is not Law-keeping, it’s keeping the Law for the purpose of love. Law-keeping without love in mind always leads to hypocrisy and legalism.
But in contrast, clinging to what is lawful for our own selfish satisfaction, and to the detriment of others is breaking the greatest of all the commandments. In fact, the breaking of the greatest commandment (which by the way is God’s Law with love, not a nebulous definition of love that replaces the Law) often carries with it the greatest threat of punishment. Jesus said that it would be better to tie a millstone around your neck and cast yourself into the sea than to cause a young believer to stumble. Paul even said that leading other believers in violating their conscience (perhaps they would see you drinking, but it would be a violation of their own conscience) could actually destroy their faith (Romans 14:13-15). Therefore, the issue of Christian liberty in the Bible is not an endeavor to learn how far we can push the envelope for our own satisfaction, but rather a solemn / weighty consideration with fearful ramifications.
Hopefully, the following examples will be helpful in making additional points on this subject. In a Sunday School class I attended some time ago, a wife shared an objection her lost husband presented in regard to her persistence that he go to church with her. He said that if he didn’t quit drinking before he went to church, he was being a hypocrite. How she should answer this objection was the question. I asked a few questions. Was his drinking a source of tension in their marriage? She answered yes. What was her goal in getting him to come to church? Was it for the purpose of him being saved? Again, the answer was yes to both. My suggestion: stop inviting him to church and start modeling the sacrificial love of Christ he doesn’t have. First, he cares more about the satisfaction that beer gives him rather than having a stronger marriage. Ie., he loves beer more than her. Secondly, he cares more about what other people think of him than what his own wife thinks of him. Her opinion is expendable. Neither of these are sacrificial love. Unfortunately, it is clear that his view of the gospel is works salvation rather than coming to grips with the fact that he’s so wretched, that he actually loves beer more than his wife. Seeing the sacrificial love of Christ in her, and thereby realizing that he does not have that kind of love is her best shot at getting him saved.
Lastly, the example from my own life. My girlfriend, Susan, has had a horrible life experience with alcohol at the hands of another. She has seen what alcohol can do to peoples lives and the power it can have over individuals. With a variety of other beverages available for enjoyment and her knowledge of the destructive power that alcohol can have, it is understandably, and wisely, banished from her immediate realm of life, a life I want to be a part of. Hence, my decision to totally abstain from any form of alcohol use. But not because the Bible prohibits its use altogether for that is not the truth, and only the truth sets us free. But rather for the most important Biblical command of all, to love God and others the way we want to be loved, and with the same intensity as we love ourselves, “for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it….” (Ephesians 5:29).
paul
16 comments