Now, one of the questions that
I do think bears some comment, and I don't have it before me,
but I have the substance of it in my head, pertains to an aspect
of the whole doctrine of Christian liberty that I tried to touch
on when we were dealing with the subject, but apparently sometimes
either you're taking notes or your mind is distracted by a
fly on the wall or something, and sometimes we can miss a certain
thrust. And it has to do with this whole
matter of how do we know, yes. VNF 597, your lights are on.
VNF 597. Chrysler New Yorker, white. It has reference to this whole
matter of how we can identify the particular status of our
brother's conscience. For instance, in all of those
passages in Romans 15 and again in 1 Corinthians 8 and in 1 Corinthians
10, if brother A here is the stronger
brother, with reference to things indifferent, and brother B is
the weaker brother, Brother A, in his relationship to B, in
the fulfillment of his responsibilities, and Brother B in his relationship
to A, must be able somehow to identify each other, which means
that there is some communication between them with reference to
the particular status of their conscience in these things. For
instance, if Brother A is walking in love to Brother B, he does
not want to grieve him. He does not want to cause him
to stumble. And he is willing to forego,
as Paul says, if meat makes my brother to offend, I'll eat no
meat while the world stands. I will neither eat meat, nor
drink wine, nor do anything whereby my brother is offended or is
caused to stumble. Well, the clear indication is
that Paul cannot voluntarily relinquish the exercise of his
liberty unless he knows that Brother Bee, in whose presence
he is, has this particular problem of conscience. And therefore,
it is essential that there be openness between brethren in
the assembly with reference to these matters, and sometimes
an explicit questioning of one another. For instance, you might, as an
act of kindness, maybe some of you, to put it in a concrete
situation, some of you might be looking forward to the Christmas
holiday, at which time you're planning to take your children
to Radio City Music Hall to see a special children's film. Maybe
they're going to have a rerun of Bambi or something else, all
right? And so as an act of kindness, you say to one of your brothers
or sisters in the assembly, look, I'm taking the family in to see
Bambi, would you like to go along with us? Well, if you have scruples
about attending any kind of a commercial motion picture theatre, how in
the world is your brother or sister going to know that? Here
they are trying to do something of this kindness, and you could
equivocate and say, well, and then very quickly make up some
other plans in the subconscious so you're not exactly lying when
you say, well, I've got other plans, etc. In this, then, you
see Boyle's in your spirit and your brother or sister trying
to show love. The next time it's convenient
to do so, they ask a similar question. Well, you've just got
to say it. Well, I really appreciate the expression of your thoughtfulness.
However, I just have problems of conscience about attending
any kind of a commercial motion picture institution. I'm glad
you can go with a good conscience, but I want you to know that I
just have problems in that area. I just could not feel that I
was honoring them. So Brother A says, well, that's
wonderful, and then seeks to find another channel by which
to show his love and his concern and sensitivity to Brother B.
But Brother B has got to let him know what his problem is
in that area, you see? So that this may come to pass
in situations where, again, if someone's in your home, you don't
know they're a vegetarian, and here you've planned a wonderful
meal, and you put the food on the table, And maybe you sit
at the head of the table, maybe it's a hot dish with meat in
it, and the head of the house is serving it. Well, if there's
not some kind of communication, you see, there's going to be
real problems. Your food is put on the plate, and then you're
wrestling with, boy, I don't want to offend my host by not
eating, but if I do eat, it'll bother my conscience, because
I can't eat meat with conscience. What in the world do I do? Well,
you ought to have communicated beforehand. And when you had
the invitation to the meal, you just should have said, now look,
I don't want to be embarrassing to anyone in the rest, so when
my meat is ready to serve, just put everything on there but the
meat. Because I have problems with eating meat, and I don't
want to make anybody else feel uncomfortable or awkward, etc.
And so you get that all taken care of. But again, there's got
to be the communication between residents, so that there can
be the proper response based upon the knowledge of where the
other one is. Does that help to clarify it
for whoever asked the question? Does that open up a can of worms
and further questions? Is that clear? Yes, Louise. Yes,
for instance, Those were many of the folk who
are of the Reformed Presbyterian, not the Evangelical, but Reformed
Presbyterian Church of America. They're called the Covenanters.
For short, they call each other covies. That's their nickname. Oh, you're a covie, or he's a
covie pastor. And the Geneva College, where some of our young
people attend, is the official liberal arts college of the covies,
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, the Covenanters.
All those terms, if you hear them, they're all synonymous.
And many of them. have a teetotaling position with
reference to alcoholic beverages. Now, here's a case where if someone
would be emboldened to go against his conscience by social pressure
example, that total abstinence in their presence would be the
part of Christian love. However, in many situations like
that, a person is not going to be emboldened to follow the example.
It's good, then, I think, privately to say, would you find it a problem
if we were to serve some wine at this special meal? And if
they seem to get unhinged by it and the rest, well, then you
just back off. But if they understand the doctrine of Christian liberty,
their answer will be, why, of course not, go right ahead. If
wine is not a particular problem to them, where they might be
emboldened to indulge against their conscience or feel social
pressure, And here again, there's got to be communication. I've
been in situations where people have said, would you be offended
if I did thus and thus? I said, no, you go right ahead,
they won't offend me at all. Would you be grieved? Would this
be an occasion of stubbornness? I said, no, you go right ahead,
no problem at all. But the very fact that the question
is asked shows there's that awareness of sensitivity and desiring to
walk in love. And that's what's so vital. in
these relationships, that we make it evident to one another
that we are concerned about the influence of our conduct in the
presence of our brethren. We don't have an irresponsibility,
an irresponsible individualism that says, well, what I do is
just between me and the Lord. Well, it isn't. There is this
effect that we have none lives to himself, none dies to himself.
We not only live and die to the Lord, as Paul says, but in the
context of Christian liberty, we live in the presence of each
other. Does that answer the question,
Lewis? Yeah. Yes, go. I'm wondering about the person
that can't do something. He feels it's wrong to do it.
Wrong for whom? For him. Yeah. He feels it's
wrong. He feels it's wrong, period.
For whom? Well, you see, the point is,
if I feel it's wrong, I feel it's wrong. For whom? for everybody. All right, then you have the
love of God to support. Well, the point, yes, what I
want to say is, if I feel it's wrong, and my brother, he doesn't
feel it's wrong, and he says to me, or I take the example
of what I'm going to do. Yeah. Would you like to go to
the theater? And if I say, Jim, no, I just feel it's wrong. I am in a sense, I'm in a sense
saying to him, I'm going to let you go, but I still think it's
wrong. Well, then you haven't understood the doctrine of Christian
liberty. Well, the point is, I don't want him to feel that
I think I'm a better person than he is, or whatever, but somehow
when I say, no, I can't do that, I'm somehow, you know, he's going
to think, boy, he must think I'm an inferior Christian. How
do we keep him offended? All you say is, that is wrong,
and add two words. One a preposition, and one a
personal pronoun. That is wrong for me. Now, if it's a case where you
believe a brother is doing something that violates the clear teaching
of the Word of God, now you have an obligation and love to exhort
him, lest he be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. But
then the onus is on the one who makes that assertion, you see.
So that, for instance, here's someone—I know some people who
absolutely take an inflexible position. Cellulose passing through
a machine called a projector, that is in any way housed in
a building that is commercially owned and operated, is per se
thin, without any exception whatsoever. I mean, that's their mental cast. Now, if they're convinced of
that, as committed to righteousness, then they must want to see sin
dealt with. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather reprove them. They would put
cellulose passing through a projector, within the walls of a commercial
establishment, in every instance, without exception, is sin. or
then they have a responsibility and love to try to exhort their
brother. Now, the moment they start to do that, if they're
dealing with an intelligent brother who understands his Bible, one
of two things is going to happen. They're either going to go away
and say he's carnal, he doesn't want to listen to light, in which
case he's violating the principle of Christian liberty and judging
his brother, or he's going to see that his position is wrong
and is simply an addition of a man's precept that goes beyond
the word of God. So that if we just add those
words, brother, I really appreciate that expression of your love
to me. I mean, just like there are times when I've been in an
airplane, when people offered me a cigarette or a cigar. I
haven't said, no, I don't smoke, I feel obscene. I say, I appreciate
your thoughtfulness, but I'd rather not. There was a time
when I would have gladly done so. You know, and I say that
to them, but I don't push them down. I try to see what lies
behind that off with sensitivity to my need, even if it's something
that I can indulge in, even with the unconverted. So I think that's
the critical thing, Grove. And I have no sense in my heart
that I'm judging a brother when he asks me would I like to do
this or go here, if it's a doing something or a going someplace
for which my conscience does not give me liberty, I can really
say before God I don't pass judgment on him. For instance, I don't
know who, but I understand recently it just came up in a conversation
somewhere that a group of our people went to, I think, the
Paper Mill Playhouse to see Annie Get Your Gun. Well, I would feel
very uncomfortable in that situation, but I can honestly say that every
one of those who went should right now identify themselves.
My attitude towards them and my esteem of them will not be
affected one iota. because I say that might be wrong
for me under a given set of circumstances. See? And it's the ability to
say wrong for me. But to give them their liberty
to believe that they went and spent that evening together with
thanks to God and for all I know gathered in a home afterward
and gave thanks to God for the evening and fine. That's the
emphasis Paul gives. He that eateth, eateth to the
Lord, for he giveth God thanks. He that eateth not, He eats what
he does eat to the Lord and gives God thanks. So that's the critical
element. For me. I don't think I've convinced
you yet. Yeah. Well, I think just in those ways.
I mean, I'm trying to put it in as concrete a situation as
I know. Brother, I appreciate that expression of your love
to me. And if you can do that before the Lord, the Lord bless
you in it. But I just feel I couldn't, and
so I'm going to decline as a matter of conscience for me. But I want
you to know, brother, in no way do I try to project my conscience
into your breast. And I've done that on a number
of occasions with various things. I shouldn't say a number, but
enough to know that I've never seen anyone get offended with
that. Okay? Yes, Robert. We were talking
about this area with a friend. How do you get... He was saying,
well, I find... I don't see anything wrong with
drinking a little bit of wine, but I feel that I'm being a hypocrite
by changing my standard with different people, you know, or
not drinking with some people, or putting it away out of my
refrigerator and hiding it from people, you know. The whole problem
at the time of a double standard. But it isn't a double standard. But that's a good question. Someone
else asked me that at the door after one of the sessions on
Christian liberty. Is it a double standard? Here
we are in the presence of this brother. Here's a person who
has his table, and on his table he has a bottle of Matus. All right? Matus bottle. OK. All right, here's the front door. Now, this particular brother
may be a relative who has a very strong teetotaling, fundamentalist
mentality background. You're not around them to show
them the whole context. You know that you'd just be raising
their hackles to even try to discuss the thing. So you go
to the door, your meal's all prepared, and you have a surprise,
as I did the other night, thinking I was letting in someone who
had an appointment to come counsel with me at four and ask to my
father. I mean, this does happen. So what do you do? Your concern
is if I tell the wife, grab the bottle of my tooths and go stick
it under the... under the stored-up blankets up in the bedroom closet.
This particular person comes, shares your meal, and two hours
later, some brother comes, and you know, would like this little
glass of Matus, and you send your wife back up the hallway
out, put it back on the table. You say, isn't that hypocritical,
double standard? No, it isn't. It is the diversity
of operation from the base of a biblical standard. because
you do not relate to people as generic people, that is, people
in general, discerning that in this instance there would be
offense, then you are not going to offend in the presence of
that particular person. But if the next person who comes
is one who will not be offended in that thing, but this would
be a further expression of your love and of your desire to provide
something special for them, then love dictates a different action. That's not a double standard.
It is one standard of love. But love does not always do the
same thing in every situation. Ah, but someone says that's situation
ethics. Well, it is the biblical aspect
of situation ethics. The difference between us and
the Fletchers and the others who talk about situation ethics,
is that our ethic is rooted in the law of God and in the eternal
moral principles of the Word of God. We say there is a basis
of moral absolutes, but in the outworking of those absolutes,
love does not always do the same thing in the same situation.
For instance, here's a person that just loves shellfish. Love
may dictate that when that person comes, your wife provides a casserole. I'm allergic to shellfish. I
forget it when it's served to me and just hope nothing happens.
But if you knew that, love would dictate whatever you prepare
for me. You don't prepare shellfish. Now is that double standard?
No. It just shows that love cuts
a different channel in terms of its knowledge of the object.
Yes. Well, here we come to the delicate
line where, I think it was Calvin who said, we have no obligation
to kowtow to Pharisees. Now, he didn't say kowtow, and
that's not the correct way to pronounce it. It used to be the
dictionary was koto, I think, but we say kowtow, so you'd wonder
what I was saying if I said the other. But in essence, this is
what he was saying. We have no obligation to jump
every time a Pharisee barks. And I think whether or not you
would have served wine to relatives in that situation had to be based
on larger principles. There are certain situations
where it would be an insult to people if it were not so. You
know, we've been at some of the weddings, and some of our young
people had unconverted parents in others. And on principle,
they had a little champagne served, simply because they felt certain
principles would have been violated. And they were weighing all the
principles that love reflects to, you see. And I think in that
instance, Louise, that's something that you have to determine before
the Lord. But we need not be overly upset. about the frowns
of Pharisees. Never forget the instance of
our Lord. When a converted Pharisee invited him to his home, Jesus
went. He ate and drank what was put
before him, so much so that when the Pharisees looked through
the window, they said, look at it. A glutton and a wine-bigger,
a friend of publicans and sinners. Jesus did not back down and say,
well, I'm sorry, I've offended you fellows. And, you know, tickle
his throat and get rid of the food and say, I'll keep better
company from now on. He said, look, you, if you understood
what was taught in the Old Testament, when God said, I will have mercy
and not sacrifice, you'd be more concerned with me, the son of
man showing mercy to sinners than you would be about all this
hang up on the externals. And there are times when we need
to be utterly indifferent about our reputation before Pharisees.
We're talking about our relationship to brothers. Now, if you're in
a situation where you know someone has a kosher mentality, Paul
says, all right, I don't eat non-kosher food. All right, there's
another set of things with reference to the unsaved, but we need not
trouble ourselves if we can please every Pharisee who thinks that
his separatist standard that goes far beyond the scriptures
is the rule that he has a right to impose upon everyone. Don't
let him do it. At that point, that's Paul with
Titus saying, we gave place, no, not for an hour. And there
comes a time when you need to exercise your liberty right under
someone's nose. But now how do you know that
it's not done maliciously or carelessly, but done in love?
That's something you have to wrestle through before God and
no one else can do it for you. Let every man be fully persuaded
in his own mind. All right, bud? If you happen
to know that this person had an alcohol problem, and that he really wrestles to
this day. Like the woman I think I may have mentioned several
years ago, I met a number of years ago at a Bible conference.
She was a graduate of a Bible school and then she started dabbling
with alcohol, ended up being an alcoholic. Then when God delivered
her from it, and she'd been delivered 17 years at the time I spoke
to her, she said to this day, if she so much as smells alcohol,
It starts all the juices flowing, and she just feels like she's
on the brink of just going down that path again. So she said,
so much so, when I'm walking down the street, if I see the
sign of a gin mill up front, she said, I at that point cross
over and walk on the other side. Well, if I knew that she were
coming to the house, say I knew, all right? Put myself in your
situation. If you knew that she were coming to your house, okay?
Or you didn't know, and others who didn't have that problem,
she appeared at the door. What would you do? Well, you'd say
to her, well, sister so-and-so, I didn't know you were coming,
but now that you've come, will you just give us a minute? We
don't want to be an occasion of stumbling to you. Take the
wine bottle off for her sake, because you know that it will
be the occasion of unnecessary temptation to her. The same way
if a group of people were sitting around in a home watching a football
game. On New Year's Day, say you have
some people over and you're watching one of the bowl games, all right?
Into the room comes someone that, through previous knowledge, see
we come back to the principle I started with today, we get
sensitive to each other in these areas. You know that this person
was a sports addict, and I mean was one of these people that,
you know, come Saturday afternoon, watch the double-headers on Channel
7, and then right through Sunday and the rest, and they found
that to kick the habit they've had to be a total abstainer.
And they, you know this. Well, if they happen to drop
in for a minute, if you don't love them enough to turn off
that television, and to fellowship in your things of common love
for Christ and the rest, and wait till they go to turn it
on again, then you're not walking in love. You see? But that's
not a double standard. It's love responding to the situation
that love demands. And it's not, you don't need
to be embarrassed then if the person comes through. But if you know ahead of time,
For instance, the thing Bob referred to, if you have relatives that
you know would simply not understand that they just can't even emotionally
and psychologically react. The very presence of, you know,
of some mild German wine with 7% alcoholic content would just
totally unhinge them. You know, pouring 12 cups of
coffee a day in their stomach, ruining their insides and their
heart, that wouldn't bother them. But 6% of alcohol, one little
two ounce glass, three times a year and they become unhinged
I mean that's just their mentality well you know they wouldn't understand
so if you know they're coming you don't have it around but
suppose they should come and find it well then you're not
embarrassed you simply say mom, dad, cousin, auntie, uncle, whoever
you are in most circumstances wouldn't have been found with
this but we believe before God this is part of our liberty but
I know this would be offensive to you we'll certainly get it
out of sight alright But he began to see the principle that love
responds to the situation as it's found. Now, we may have
some visiting with us who, you know, you just say, what kind
of a church have I come into? People in here drink wine. Well,
there was a time a few years ago when if I had come in here
as a stranger, I would have run out of here and said, this is
some liberal church. If that's your attitude right now, and
I speak lovingly to you, may I challenge you to do one thing?
take your concordance, and look up the word wine and strong drink,
those two words in your Bible, every context, and just study
them. Will you do that? That's all I ask you to do. And
when you do, you'll come away with the conviction that you
have no grounds to say that on biblical principles, a teetotaling
position is the only valid position for the people of God. Let me
just give you one passage All right, just to challenge it,
because these passages normally are not even considered if we
come out of circles that have this mentality. Deuteronomy 14. And again now, this is not a
polemic that if you absolutely abstain from alcoholic beverages
you ought to begin to partake. No, no, no, no, no. This is a
special word of instruction for any who may be visiting among
us who are totally unhinged because of the drift of the discussion
thus far. And I want to be of help to you,
that's all. In Deuteronomy 14, God says in verse 22, Thou shalt
surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, that which cometh
forth from the field year by year. And thou shalt eat before
the Lord, that is, you will engage in feasting that is religious
in nature, to eat before the Lord. in the place which he shall
choose to cause his name to dwell there. God says you'll have special
religious feasting in the place of the tabernacle and later the
temple, the place where God dwells. And he says, what will you eat
there? The tithe of thy grain, of thy new wine, of thine oil,
and of the firstlings of thy flock, of thy herd of thy flock,
that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always. In other
words, this religious eating is to enforce the fear of God. You got it? Now, if the way be
too long for thee, that thou art not able to carry it, here
you have the tithe of your new wine, the tithe of your grain,
and the bundle's just too long. You couldn't carry it from your
particular tribal dwelling all the way up to Shiloh, or eventually
up to Jerusalem, where the temple was. What are you to do? He says,
this is what you're to do. Then thou shalt turn it into
money, and bind up the money in thy hand, and go to the place
which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt bestow
the money for whatever thy soul desireth. for oxen, for sheep,
for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever thy soul asketh
of thee, and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and
thou shalt rejoice in thy household." God made the drinking of wine
and strong drink a viable option of a religious feast that was
to strengthen the nation in the fear of God. Now, my friends,
I didn't put that there, nor did Shenley and company. God
the Holy Ghost put it there. That's right there. You see it?
Well, maybe in the Hebrew there is... No, no, no, that's a good
translation. That's a good translation. You see, it was only the man
under a Nazarite vow that had to take total abstinence as his
posture, the clear teaching being that was not part of the covenant
obligation of the nation of Israel. And the parallel in the New Testament
is, spiritual leaders, it says, must not be given too much bond,
indicating that not only is moderation, if that's their choice, possible,
It is in no way inconsistent with the highest standard of
godliness which God sets for spiritual leaders. Now, my friends,
that's the Scripture. Now, drunkenness any unnecessary
flirtation with drunkenness, any unnecessary flirtation with
that which leads to drunkenness, is condemned in the word of God
as is gluttony, any unnecessary temptation to gluttony, any unnecessary
associations that lead to gluttony, and we could start naming a number
of other sins. So I say that particularly, and
I do it with no tongue in cheek. Looking out this morning, I see
visitors among us and not knowing what your background is and feeling
something of what my reaction would have been a few years ago
had I come in cold turkey. I do plead with you, please,
please don't go out and say, I went to that Trinity Baptist
Church and the first time I was there in the adult class, they
talk like they all sit around swigging wine and all the rest. Man, that place, my friend, please
don't do that. I'm serious now. I'm not fooling.
I'm dead in earnest. Don't do that, because that would
be bearing false witness, and it would grieve us. It'd be interesting
if you were to take a show of hands right now. How many have
a position for yourself of absolute teetotaling? Just raise your
hands quickly. All right. How many drink wine
with moderation? Raise your hand quickly and put
it down. All right, put it down. I would say offhand, it was about
three-fifths and two-fifths. I think it points out the principle,
you see, and I deliberately didn't look to see whose hands were raised
and the rest, that was not the issue to identify, you see. But
the principle is that it's possible to have individual conscience
before God in these matters and to be within the norms of scripture.
And as elders who seek to be involved with the lives of our
people, we've had to exercise discipline for a number of reasons
through the years. We've never had occasion to exercise
discipline for intemperance with alcoholic beverages. Yes, Paul? One thing that's concerned me
here in this whole thing is the description of weaker and stronger
brother, because I feel that I have the ability to transform
moderately, yet there are those in this congregation that I consider
to be far more godly men than I, who take the other position,
and I might just say that they are a weaker brother. Well, one
of the points I tried to emphasize, Paul, when we began the series,
and I think it bears re-emphasis, is the terms weaker or stronger
are not general terms concerning the whole Christian character. In other words, we might say
of Brother A, who takes a position of total abstinence, He may take it on a basis that
is not indicative that he's a weaker brother. In other words, he doesn't
do it because he has scruples of conscience that wine is evil.
He simply feels for him it would be an unnecessary posture of
temptation. Well, that doesn't constitute
him a weaker brother. Remember, the weaker brother is only weak
if he has scruples concerning things indifferently. when he
makes a thing that God has put indifferent, when he makes it
a matter of his ethical and religious conviction that the thing in
itself is evil. You follow me now? Now, it's
perfectly possible that a man may have a religious scruple,
say, about motion pictures, or about the drinking of wine, or
any other things, OK? He may have it about eating meat.
Whatever that religious scruple is, his weakness is weakness
only in that particular category of his conscience. He may be
one of the men, the strong men, described in 1 John. He may be
a father in Israel in knowledge and in experience and in love,
whereas the brother who is strong in this area of conscience may
be a pygmy in terms of overall spiritual stature. So we must
never forget that the terms weak and strong apply only with reference
to the conscience in the presence of things indifferent. And constantly
tell ourselves that. And as I think I pointed out
two weeks ago, many times, the very person who has unnecessary
or unfounded spookles concerning one or two things here, that
very disposition of conscience before the Lord is what makes
him a giant in other areas, because he's careful to walk before God
in the integrity of an unblemished conscience Whereas so often,
and that's why this is a dangerous doctrine, a man assumes that
because he has liberty of conscience, he ought to have liberty to exercise
his liberty, when the part of his wisdom might be total abstinence. Because he's generally weak in
his Christian character, and he cannot get that close to sparks
without being consumed. I'll never forget, you remember
that time Michael Cantine said this, and it was eloquent. He
was in a situation where this whole matter came up in a practical
way, and someone was trying to urge him on in a given direction.
He just smiled and says, now remember, brother, you exercise
your liberty by indulging. I exercise my liberty by graciously
refusing. And as I do not impinge upon
your liberty, don't impinge upon mine. And I thought, that said
it all. I've never forgotten it. Never
forgotten it. I said, that's the kind of wisdom
that will make a man a good person, when he understands that. Is
that satisfactory, Paul? Yes, very good. Yes? I found that by exercising liberty
often has been an occasion of helping another person to understand
the doctrine of Christianity a little better. Rather than
going to hide the wine bottle, I would often just leave it to
sit out because it's a nice little conversation. Yeah. Alright,
but see, there again, Paul, you know the situation. You see,
for instance, some of us who have dear godly parents who prayed
for us before we ever came out of the womb, who put up with
us, and man, they put up with a lot. And they're advanced in
years. And though there may be no arthritis
in the physical joints, there is an arthritic mentality with
regard to many things. Some of us just feel it would
be an unnecessary source of irritation even to broach the subject. Whereas
if there's a relative who's younger, has a whole life ahead of them,
and you want them not to go through life with unnecessary hang-ups
in their own mentality and others, then you may do that very thing.
But here again, you see, love responds to the given situation
and is sensitive to that situation. So you see why the scripture
comes back again and again and says, he that loves fulfills
the law? You see, the other thing is,
I had to tell someone the other night, I said, the thing we all
want is we want a rigid, structured, ethical framework in which we
don't have to wrestle with maintaining the sensitive spirit of selfless
love and constantly going to the scriptures for the principles. We feel comfortable when everything
is coded for us. Don't we? We feel safe in rigid
conformity, but what a price we pay for it. We pay a price
evangelistically, because the moment the church becomes identified
with a fixed code of food, of drink, of external lifestyle,
clothing, entertainment, what happens? The minute anyone looks
them over, they say, phew, I'd be so out of place in that situation.
You typecast. the people of God. It's a tragic
thing, and it's a great hindrance to true evangelism. It's a great
hindrance to seeing the principle that piety begins with poverty
of spirit, with the fear of God, with these inward perspectives,
you see? It doesn't do justice to individual
personality. You go to these groups where
there's all this rigid external conformity, and the people, for
the most part, are very plastic. There isn't the liberation of
true God-given personality. And that, to me, is one of the
greatest tragedies. That's why I fight this thing
tooth and nail. I try to fight it at every level.
You'll find that the people that come out of that type of a situation...
Some of us remember, some of you, went to a certain Christian
school a few miles from here, down south. where there's tremendous
rigidity in the external, you could spot one of their students
three miles away if you had 20-80 vision. All of them pussy cutters. When one of them stood to speak,
you could tell what school he went to. That's a tragedy. We
fought against that. We fought with the holy violence.
You young men, preparing for the work of the ministry. You
stand up and speak and in three minutes people know where you
came from in terms of how you go about it. That's a tragedy.
Now if after they listen and say, look, There's a reverence
in handling the word of God. I've got a suspicion where they
might have picked that up. There's a carefulness. Well, that's fine.
If we get known for that, that's fine. But in terms of where your
hands go, and how they go, and how loud your voice is, and how
soft it is, if that begins to be an identifiable mark, then
we've missed this tremendous concept of our true individuality
before God. And that would be tragic. Folks
in the balcony, I'm sorry, I haven't been looking at you while I've
been talking. It's hard to remember you're up there during the Sunday
school class because we haven't had you up there long. Forgive
me. I hope you've been able to hear all right? Yeah, I'm sorry
I haven't looked at you. That's an insult to have you
sitting up there and not have the speaker look at you. I'm
sorry. I just have to reprogram myself. I haven't been up here
enough since you started to sit up there in the balcony. All
right, we've got about three, four minutes more. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Acts 15. Yes. Yes. Well, here again, this is where
the concept of redemptive history is so essential. What you have
here is during this transition period, When the Jew, you remember
when I brought the first study on Christian liberty, we said
one of the situations that demanded a fleshing out of this doctrine
was the inclusion, the expansion of the church to include the
Gentiles, and then the inclusion of Jew and Gentile in common
congregations. The Gentile with his pagan scruples,
and the Jew with his Jewish and Hebrew scruples. And it seems
to me, and I think this is the position taken by most responsible
commentators, that at this particular time, before you had the final
fixed doctrine for the entire length of this epoch of redemptive
history till the Lord returns, that fixed doctrine being spelled
out in the epistles, the passages we've studied, this was a temporary
expedient. And that in the light of this
point of redemptive history, of getting the two groups really
amalgamated without unnecessary suspicion, Here was a period
when it was wise to have total abstinence in a given area. But
the very fact that the apostles later on in their epistles negate
this as being forever binding, we must allow the epistles to
take precedence over the historical narrative. And that's a fundamental
principle of hermeneutics. When our Pentecostal friends
say, when the Holy Ghost came in Acts 2, there was tons. Therefore,
wherever and whenever the Holy Ghost comes, until Jesus comes
back, there ought to be tons. We say, wait a minute. You're
forgetting. We're reading a record of what
God did in redemptive history. The interpretation of that into
the abiding standard of the Church is found in the epistles. And
we are not to take what God did at a given point and make that
the norm. for all the age. Now, I think
the same thing applies here. Does that make sense? Yes, Paul?
On the same topic, Revelation 2 seems to have a verse that
indicates that the Jewish exercise of idolatry, Revelation 2, is
a force. All right, would you read it for us nice and loud,
please, Paul, and then we'll... It's definitely in the ASV. All right. Revelation 2.14, I
have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling
block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
to idols, and to commit fornication, which would indicate this was
not an innocent obtaining of a meat bargain in the shambles
outside the idol temple. It was an eating to idols that
involved integration into the worship and lifestyle of idolatry.
And that's the thing that Paul warns about in 1 Corinthians
10. Wherefore, flee idolatry. He says you cannot eat at the
table of the Lord and the table of demons, if you're eating meat
in such a way that you're partaking in the religious rite. Remember
the passage I read from Deuteronomy. They were to eat before the Lord.
The eating was not common social eating. It was religious eating.
Anyone found eating at Shiloh, eating at Jerusalem, in obedience
to that precept, was involved in the worship of Jehovah. Well,
the same way in the idol temple. It wasn't just going in and having
a meal. That meal had religious significance. And so that's the
thing that is absolutely forbidden, even there in 1 Corinthians 10,
apparently here, because then, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians
10, they ate and drank and rose up to play, which is simply a
discreet way of saying they rose up to live and commit lewdness,
as we read in the actual record in the Old Testament, God had
to spray 3,000 of them in a day. Now, Robert must be very quick
then, all right? It would seem to me that verse
14 is not even directed to the Church of Pergamon. He's making
an analogy, and his point is in verse 15, thus you also, and
you know, it's an analogy. He's not bringing to their charge
the eating of meat. No, but he does say, you have
some there that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balaam
to cast the stone of Ibak and behold the children of Israel,
to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication, that
there is a parallel. In other words, the point of
the illustration is to illustrate, isn't it? Yeah? I didn't think
that they actually held the teaching of Balaam, but rather they held
the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Well, I think we have to go into
a careful exegesis. I've been looking at the grammar
in the original. I wouldn't be prepared to make a pronouncement
on it, but I am going to pronounce it. We're done. The time is gone.
All right? Shall we pray together? Our Father, we thank you for
your word. We believe with all our hearts
that it is the sufficient and the only rule of faith and of
practice. help us to be enlightened as
to its precepts, give us grace to walk in the light of it. Lord,
we pray for any who may be visiting among us this morning who have
heard strange things upon their ears. All we ask, O Lord, is
that they may sense that we have been sensitive to their state
of mind and heart and that you would give to them the Berean
spirit to search the scriptures to see whether these things are
so. We pray that you will keep us
from the abuse of the doctrine of Christian liberty. We know
that multitudes have destroyed their souls forever by using
their liberty as a cloak for maliciousness. Lord, keep us
from such sin, we pray. Give us an increasing measure
of love to one another. that we may be sensitive to each
other's concerns and perspectives. O Lord, help us. Help us, we
pray, for the sake of your dear Son and for the eternal profit
of our souls. Amen.