Yesterday, Pastor Stephen preached from Revelation 12 and did a brief overview of the doctrine of Satan. He stated that Satan has two primary goals:
- to disrupt God's purposes
- to discredit believers before God
I spent a lot of time thinking on the phrase from verse 10: "the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night."
Pastor spoke of Satan in his role as accuser—a master prosecutor bringing evidence before a Holy God to convict believers before Him. We give him ammunition 24/7. The things he speaks to the Father are truth. But we have an advocate who raises His nail-scarred hands and says, "paid in full." Although Satan continually accuses us, he has no voice with God!! In Rev. 12:10, there is rejoicing because no longer will God even allow Satan in heaven to accuse, but he is cast down to earth and begins a relentless pursuit of God's chosen nation, Israel, which lasts for three and a half years.
This provoked another thought in me, one that required action on my part. First, I looked up the word, "accuser" in the NT. It is the greek word 
(kathgorevw) meaning "to accuse, to make an accusation before a judge." It is used 21 times in the NT. In nearly every instance, the word is used of accusations against Jesus or the apostles. But there is one verse that uses it differently: Romans 2:15. It reads, ..."they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing [them])." In this verse, the conscience does the accusing. But in every other instance it is the enemy bringing accusation against God's people or God's Son.
Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness. He will not always strive [with us,] Nor will He keep [His anger] forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. Just as a father has compassion on [his] children, So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him. For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are [but] dust.
Next, I asked myself this question: "So when I accuse or charge other believers with punishable offenses, who am I most like?" That made me dig in a little deeper to see how God looks at the believer. I found several biblical references seen in the callout to the right (not exhaustive here, but representative) characterizing God's attitude toward His people.
The apostle Paul directs us in our attitude toward one another in Colossians 3:12-14 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.
That nearly settles it, doesn't it? But wait, we have doctrinal issues that need attention, don't we? I mean, what of those who do this or don't do that? Hadn't we ought to make it clear how wrong they are? Sorry, our dear Paul put the brakes on that one, too, in Romans 14:
Accept Christians who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it is all right to eat anything. But another believer who has a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who think it is all right to eat anything must not look down on those who won't. And those who won't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn God's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord's power will help them do as they should.
In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. Each person should have a personal conviction about this matter. Those who have a special day for worshiping the Lord are trying to honor him. Those who eat all kinds of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who won't eat everything also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. For we are not our own masters when we live or when we die. While we live, we live to please the Lord. And when we die, we go to be with the Lord. So in life and in death, we belong to the Lord. Christ died and rose again for this very purpose, so that he might be Lord of those who are alive and of those who have died.
So why do you condemn another Christian? Why do you look down on another Christian? Remember, each of us will stand personally before the judgment seat of God. For the Scriptures say,
"'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow to me and every tongue will confess allegiance to God.'"
Yes, each of us will have to give a personal account to God.
So don't condemn each other anymore. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not put an obstacle in another Christian's path. I know and am perfectly sure on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. And if another Christian is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don't let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. Then you will not be condemned for doing something you know is all right. For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God. And other people will approve of you, too. So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up.
Don't tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. Don't eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble. You may have the faith to believe that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by doing something they know is all right. But if people have doubts about whether they should eat something, they shouldn't eat it. They would be condemned for not acting in faith before God. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
New Living Translation
So, with a resounding "OUCH!" I have to make a commitment to change my attitude—even at home my husband. (yoo hoo, wives, we are NOT the Holy Spirit, but a helper!!) The scriptures are pretty clear that the only condemnation I need make is of the things that God convinces me ought not be in MY life. There may be an opportunity to humbly point out biblical error to another believer, but if it resorts to pouncing on them with my Study Bible marked up like a porcupine with sticky flags on my favorite "thou shalt not" verses, I'd better step back a bit. Romans 14 says that God is able to give them the power to do as they should!!
So I ask, "Who is on the Lord's Side?" Will we join the enemy, the accuser of the brethren, or will we join with the One who laid down His life for His friends?
Finally, a favorite quote which humorously sums up the struggle of unity in the church—"To live above with saints we love, Oh, that will be glory!! But to live below with saints we know—Now that's another story!" (Russell Camp).
Thanks, Mary. And you've made another great thought-provoking post. This follows so closely my thinking on these matters. I was convicted of these very things over the last couple of years through conversations with folks at church, online, and at work.
ReplyDeleteI have really been convicted that we Christians fall very easily into trying to do the work of the Holy Spirit. And that seems dangerously close to Satan's presumptive sin that got him and his minions thrown out of heaven.
We are not God and should not try to be God. And if we pay attention to our own sins and try to grow in righteousness, I think we would lose many of the earthly cares that we have when we try to police everyone else.
Well, yes, guys, but I have to say I do not see Mr. Luther as fitting in very well with Paul's teaching here. I'm speaking of the quotation on the side. Really, think about it: If Luther's advice were followed, you'd have the people who ate meat offered to idols going around saying, in essence, "Nah, nah, nah nah nah, I eat meat offered to idols! What are you going to do about it? I'm proving my liberty to you nasty tyrants by getting in your face." I'm sorry, but I think that Luther quote is _very_ unbiblical based on this very passage from Paul. And I was thinking about that already, but since the passage from Paul has been brought up expressly...
ReplyDeleteLydia - I think you're reading something into Luther's quote that is not there. What Luther was saying is that when folks are following man-made laws in order to be looked on with approval by God, you must live out your Christian liberty in their sight in order to demonstrate that Christianity is a matter of faith in Christ rather than working for our salvation.
ReplyDeleteWhen Paul tells us to not flaunt our freedom in a way that will cause a brother to stumble he is dealing with something that is very different than living a committed Christian life in freedom in a demonstration that faith alone brings salvation.
The "causing a brother to stumble" concept is referring to our using our liberty in Christ regardless of others who we know full well are weak in that area and in our actions we encourage them to violate their conscience. That is something we should avoid.
We should not, however, avoid legitimate Christian liberties because others have developed their own standard based on human tradition that they want to use as a show of their own personal holiness. Folks who do that are in grave danger because they are holding a standard for righteousness that robs Christ of his glory and his victory.
Those two different scenarios may look the same, but they spring from very different heart attitudes and those attitudes make them very different things. We should not, for example, avoid going to the theater because there might be someone around who may see us and be offended that we as Christians have chosen that form of entertainment. That would amount to putting ourselves under a bondage from which Christ paid his very blood to free us.
But if we know someone who believes deeply that attending a movie is immoral, and we know that if they were to see us attend a movie they may be encouraged to violate their conscience by attending a movie themselves, then we should avoid attending theaters in an area where that person might see us.
If that person would see us and just get mad at us and think less of us (and maybe talk bad about us to others at the next prayer meeting), but would not go out and attend a theater himself, then Paul's admonition does not apply and we need not concern ourselves about that persons self-righteousness.
At least that is what I see in scripture. A Fundamentalist's adherence to extra-biblical rules is fine if they're doing it to honor and glorify God. But if they are doing it to actually BE holy, they are doing the wrong thing. "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23--the last verse in the long quote in the post as translated in the ESV), so to get right down to it, if a person avoids alcohol to gain God's favor or avoids movies to gain God's favor or goes to church to gain God's favor or gives to the poor to gain God's favor then he is sinning. Anything we do should spring from faith and not from a desire to contribute to our own salvation. Anything we avoid should be avoided because we truly think it is wrong and not because we want to contribute to our own salvation.
That being the case, we absolutely must not press our own personal extra-biblical standards on others as we would then be forcing them to sin because they would be doing or not doing those things out of a desire to please us and not because they through faith believe them to be right or wrong.
Did that make any sense?
Well, I follow your reasoning, and I acknowledge that it's entirely well-worked-out and consistent, but I'm not at all sure Paul would make the distinction you're making so sharply. The Luther quotation sounds to me like it's saying that you should _deliberately_ do things that you know others think are wrong _because_ you think they are setting up their own standards and in order to "prove something" to them. Now, that does not strike me as proceeding from a loving attitude to those people. I think one reason Luther was probably moved to be so vehement about this was because of the absence of any separation of church and state in his own day. It's hard not to get hot under the collar when so-called Christians are out there literally burning people at the stake and trying to kill them! But in our own time, I think that to go out and sort of deliberately draw attention to the fact in speaking to your fundamentalist brother that you drink alcohol or go to the theater is itself not consistent with the principles Paul is putting forward here. And I think this is true regardless of whether your fundamentalist brother is going to be led into sin or not and regardless of whether he has the right attitude or not.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the problem is that the whole thing gets cast in all or nothing terms. But it isn't an all or nothing thing. To some extent it's just a matter of using judgement and tact. It's really not _hard_ for me to refrain from using 'gosh' or 'golly' around relatives who are bothered by these words, so it's a matter of being charitable not to do so. Obviously, if it were something more extreme, like their thinking a woman should never cut her hair or something, that would be different. It's not like I would change my entire life for that reason. One weighs these things up. But if it's a small matter like adopting a slightly different vocabulary when some given person happens to be at my house, then it's on a par with, say, avoiding a sensitive conversational topic. No reason to cause interpersonal tension. It just becomes a matter of friendship and kindness.
ReplyDeleteHmm, have to see both your sides here, and perhaps, Lydia, it's your last comment that comes close to the ideal. It's OUR heart attitude that God is interested in. We need to be careful in our teaching, that we are doing it out of love for the brethren. We should be LIVING more than preaching it. I think, in a personal way, I demonstrated that yesterday when I blew up and spewed all over my dear husband -- great timing after writing this note. I'm sure Satan was ranting away after that debacle. "Hey God, look at THAT one!!".
ReplyDeleteI think it comes down to discernment AND our heart attitude. If we are flaunting our liberty, that is pride. If we use our liberty to glorify God and to benefit our brother, that is not sin.
A particular example: I was with a group of managers at a business meeting. They proceeded to the lounge at the hotel. I had two choices at that point -- head up to my room, or spend time with them. A lot of believers would have been offended at what I did, because it had "the appearance of evil". I went into the lounge, drank gingerale, and built into their lives without taking part in the course jesting or the carousing. Later, another manager remarked to his girlfriend -- "I've never seen someone have so much fun on a glass of gingerale." He also noticed how I didn't "give in" to the off color conversations, but that my presence lifted the conversation up a notch. It gave me an opportunity to share the gospel once again. The light that was in me, as Ephesians says (5:8-17), reproved their deeds. It wasn't my words or my avoidance of them altogether that spoke loudly. It was how I lived IN the situation. Had I been concerned with the external bondage that some Christians later scourged me with when they found out I "walked into a bar" (which it was not, we sat in a large booth far away from the bar), or visited an establishment that sold alcohol, I would have missed this opportunity.
Would I do this everytime? Not on your life, as it might bring me to temptation. But I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Holy Spirit wanted me there for a reason. I had no idea why at the time, but I knew it, and I went. I was tired and would rather have been in bed anyway.
Another example: someone dear to me got trapped in what I believe was false doctrine -- the bondage under the law that requires that you worship only on Saturday and follow the Levitical law(funny, none of them have side locks...). I exposed it alright. I threw the book of Galatians at her!! I showed her all the Pauline epistles, every opportunity I had. Then I read this Romans 14 passage and decided that I was the one sinning. She really was the weaker brother. So, I backed off. One day, when she said something about worshipping on Saturday I said, "If you are firmly convinced in your heart that that is what you must do, anything else would be sin." She was so flabbergasted and asked "why the change." I told her I was living the Romans 14 principle. Guess what?? She began to examine her own convictions and found out more from my loving example a great deal more than my pounding her over the head ever did. I also did a LOT more praying once I shut my mouth. She has since distanced herself, though has not entirely left that movement.
If God convinces you that you need to demonstrate your liberty, it better be done out of a heart of love for that brother, not malice. It needs to be of faith, or it is sin. I didn't start worshipping on Saturday because it wounded this woman's conscience. But NEITHER DID I CONDEMN her when she did, because she is responsible to God. I demonstrated love to her and humility (that was the really, really hard part!!)
However, Luther had a reason for what he said. We can't take that statement out of context. Each of us would say that the 95 theses were necessary and appropriate. Luther encouraged marriage even though it offended the priesthood, because it was biblical. He refused to participate in the heresies of the church because they ended up being directly opposed to the teachings of scripture. He taught biblical truth to his followers even though it offended the "believers" (some indeed may not have been believers). He knew, from his conscience, that he had to demonstrate his liberty to reprove the darkness overcoming the church.
Really, it isn't Luther's comment that is the problem, it's how we appropriate it. If it gives us license to harm our brother, we're sinning. If we use our liberty to demonstrate the freedom we have in Christ and we do it in love, not pride, we're not sinning.
Finally, as I stated in my post, it comes down to this: The scriptures are pretty clear that the only condemnation I need make is of the things that God convinces me ought not be in MY life (think how busy I'd be if I were focused on THAT!!). There may be an opportunity to humbly point out biblical error to another believer, but if it resorts to pouncing on them with my Study Bible marked up like a porcupine with sticky flags on my favorite "thou shalt not" verses, I'd better step back a bit.
Luther did the right thing -- but let's not use our liberty as an occasion to sin. We need to be fully convinced that we are doing God's work and not our own.
Mary - I concur fully with what you've said here (and suspect that Lydia is probably also in agreement).
ReplyDeleteThe internet and the nature of blogging brings a different depth to discussions of this nature. It is not possible in a single blog post to discuss the myriad dynamic levels that impact a discussion of Christian liberty and how it impacts piety and personal separation. I think much of what all bloggers do is to a degree reactionary to things they have been dealing with recently - or things they have recently noticed in our societal culture.
As Mary has pointed out, Luther's statement must be taken in the context of a church that was teaching works salvation and his full-frontal attack was intended to demonstrate doctrine that had been lost to the church, but doctrine that was and is biblical.
Over the internet we participate in conversations that are multi-contextual. My current concerns about Christian liberty and behavior has been impacted by my interaction with the fundamentalism of Liberty University, the stringent and extra-biblical standards of the Patriarchy crowd, and some conversations I've had with missionaries to Muslim lands. In each of these situations, the people are striving to procure favor from God based on strict discipline in their own lives. I believe that the biblical way to handle this sort of thing is best summed up in the quote from Luther.
However, where liberties have leaned the direction of antinomianism the context must propel us to greater focus on holiness. Holiness must always be a primary focus for the Christian, but the difference in context will necessarily change the topic of conversation.
I think Mary's admonition in this post is right on the money, no matter what the context is. Christ died to reestablish for us a personal relationship with almighty God. We must look to our own personal relationship and not worry so much about others.
In the parable of the talents, each person had a certain number of talents to look after. The person who had one talent needed to concern himself with that one talent, and not concern himself with the 10 talents that were given to the servant who had the 10. And likewise, the servant who was given the 10 talents did not need to concern himself with the one. Each of us should look after the very things that God the Holy Spirit is convicting us of. These are tremendously important to our own personal spirituality. But what God convicts me of that I must repent of and change in my life may not be the necessary for another person. So while I can share with another person what God is doing in my life and where I'm being convicted, I cannot demand adherence to my personal convictions from him. This is a violation of individual soul liberty and a forced violation of conscience--even if it is well-intended.
Yes, I definitely agree about the crucialness of context. (I don't know if "crucialness" is a word!) The context I'm imagining is a social one, one of friendship or family, where there isn't any question of my altering my life in some drastic way just because of "what people might think," but where I'm just thinking of what would be courteous in an immediate and temporary situation. For example, I wouldn't drink a glass of wine in front of my mother-in-law or my parents, not (of course) because I think she would be led to drink herself and violate her conscience but just because it would cause distress and pain, and there is no need for it. And that sort of consideration and self-restraint seems to me to be _part_ of what Paul has in mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Lydia. A gentle and humble spirit is an important characteristic that Christians should all strive for. My parents are visiting for Christmas and we have already stowed wine accouterments away from sight and my wife removed one of the presents that we thought might bother them. Not because it would cause them to violate their consciences and not because we think there is anything wrong in those things, but because there is no need to teach them about Christian liberty and no reason to cause them to have to deal with our disagreement on that issue.
ReplyDeleteWe will, however, be taking my parents to church with us the Sunday after Christmas and they will have to endure the contemporary praise music (during which I will be playing the bass guitar) and the special music that I'll be performing that week, which will be a R&B style medley of Christmas songs. They are not fond of that style of music and would be very uncomfortable attending a church that incorporates contemporary genres in their music, but in that case they need to humble themselves to the culture of the majority, which I know they will. And they may even compliment me on my special music, although I'm sure they would enjoy it more had I chosen a Steven Green arrangement or sung an aria instead.
Wow, it's great to reconnect with you people. Lydia, you were always very stimulating in our conversations, and I miss that!! Rich, I like the "second glance" you give to things, not taking them at face value, but holding them up to the light and turning them to catch all the facets. I have learned much from you two already.
ReplyDeleteI just can't wait to be fully sanctified though. I am SO TIRED of sinning and giving in to the desire to satisfy the flesh. Hopefully God will use our conversations to further equip me in my struggle against the flesh.
I thank God for both of you!!
Regarding Mary's excellent post and comments following about Luther, my online friend Metochoi explained an important distinction by reminding me of Garry Friesen's (I think it was Friesen) teaching which distinguishes weaker brothers from Pharisees.
ReplyDeleteIf you use your liberty in front of a weaker brother, he is liable to go against his already sensitive consience into doing something that is not sin, but is sin in his mind, and he will feel false guilt, and this is not good.
However, a Pharisee is fully persuaded of his legalism which has the danger to damn the soul, and he will not be persuaded by your freedom, and will, in fact, preach against it.
I agree with Richard. It is to the Pharisees that Luther was directing his remarks, not to the weaker brothers.
Paul spoke to both groups. He was very stern with the Pharisees and Judaizers, calling them "dogs." And he admonished Christians to take great care around the weak, and there is no hypocrisy here. One group is dangerous and must be spoken against, and the other group needs gentle guidance and proper teaching.
Simplegifts3 - you and I have been through some of this ground before, haven't we? I find it so easy to get off-balance, falling into too much libertarianism or falling into judgmental legalism--sometimes at the same time. It's hard to keep a proper balance.
ReplyDeleteBut I think you've pointed out a good guideline for keeping that balance. Although we can't know a person's heart, or even our own at times, it is pretty easy to tell when someone is being a Pharisee rather than a "weaker brother." The Pharisee says, "you must do this to be a good Christian," and the weaker brother looks at similar extra-biblical things and says, "I just think that I should not do that."
If we tell others what we are convicted is proper when we don't have a scripture mandate for it and then expect them to live up to that standard, we are being legalistic and we are sinning. If we tell others, "I am convicted that I should not do this," we are handling it properly. And it may indicate that we are the "weaker brother" or it may simply be that we are right about that particular thing. Either way, at that point if God chooses to convict the friend we are speaking to, He will do so without our having to pressure our friend or judge our friend.
I need to look to My Sacred Calling and not to Your Sacred Calling.