Another great sermon by Dr. R.C. Sproul, again very nearly
word-for-word. On “doubtful things.” Enjoy.
The progress of our Christian life following our
justification is sanctification, by which we are called to grow to maturity and
into conformity to the image of Christ.
In defense of the gospel of justification by faith alone, Martin Luther
said, “Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. A true faith that is saving faith will immediately,
necessarily, and inevitably begin to show forth the fruit of that faith in the
progress of sanctification.” Also remember
the apostle who told us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” And
in Philippians 2:13: “For God is at work
within us both to will and to do His good purpose.” This means that we are not
to be at ease, to “let go and let God.”
There are various pitfalls that undermine that progress
along the way. And perhaps the two most
dangerous pitfalls are the distortions that we call antinomianism and
legalism. Antinomianism means “anti-law-ism.” It asserts that once I am saved by grace, I
no longer have to be concerned about living a life of obedience, or give any
particular significance, to the Law of God.
One of the critical concerns of 16th century Romanism, with
the advent of the Reformation, was a belief that this doctrine of “faith alone”
would lead to a spirit of antinomianism, because once the Law had fulfilled its
purpose of driving us to Christ and the Gospel, it would have no more impact
among us. And there were those who
literally moved in that direction. But we believe that though the ceremonial
laws have been fulfilled in Christ and therefore abrogated, nevertheless the
laws that are rooted in the very character of God, and are revealed in His
moral law, still have relevance to the Christian. Not as a means by which we achieve salvation,
but rather as a means by which we proceed in sanctification—to do that which is
pleasing to God.
But we live in a time, within the evangelical church, where
antinomianism is epidemic. One
denomination, in their doctrine, says the Old Testament Law has no further
import to the life of the Christian. And
in that antinomian spirit, we have seen, I think, one of the most destructive
doctrines that has been embraced widely in the evangelical community—namely the
concept of the “carnal Christian.” It is
an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
True, we have a fleshly spirit that is not completely eradicated until
we enter Glory, but that’s not the problem when we encounter the doctrine of
the “carnal Christian.” Their idea is
that a person can be truly saved, and receive Christ as Savior—but NOT as
Lord. And they may never produce any
fruit of a sanctified life; but may remain carnal (fleshly) until death. Christ is supposedly in this person’s life,
but not reigning on the throne of their life.
“Self” remains established in the governing center and the core of the
person.
But on the other side of the equation is the threat that’s
always there of legalism. What is
legalism? There is not one single
monolithic form of legalism. There are
varieties, different types of meaning.
The worst meaning has reference to the idea that by your works, you can
satisfy the demands of God’s Law, and can gain salvation through your own
works. That is the view that is so
widely held by people who have never heard the Bible say that “by the works of
the Law shall no flesh be justified.” In
fact the vast majority of people out there really believe in a legalistic
manner and means of being redeemed. Which
is false not only with respect to the way of salvation set forth in Scripture;
but it is a way of salvation that if it were indeed the Biblical way of
salvation, would cause these people who believe it nothing but everlasting
Doom. Because none of us do the works of
the Law that are required to satisfy the legal demands of God.
Other forms of legalism were those perfected by the
Pharisees, which drew the rebuke, and at times, the wrath, of our Lord Himself.
The Pharisees were fond of majoring in minors.
That’s a form of legalism where you give great zeal and great attention
to minor matters of the Law, at the expense of, and ignoring, the weightier
matters of the Law. They paid attention
to the tithe, but ignored justice and mercy.
You know people like that; they’re scrupulous in their church
attendance, they wouldn’t think of shorting God in the collection plate--but as
far as the rest of the fruit of the spirit is concerned, they could care
less! They have majored in minors.
The other thing the Pharisees were experts at were a kind of
“ethical loop-holism.” If they could
obey the letter of the Law, never mind the spirit of the Law, they spent time
looking for a way around it to suit their needs. If they wanted to go on a trip that was more
than a Sabbath day’s journey, they would simply, during the week, have a
courier leave a toothbrush under a rock at various intervals, because, legally,
the presence of one’s toothbrush established temporary legal residence. And so even though they made a trip of 15
miles in one day (thus breaking their law of travel on the Sabbath), they only
went so far between these rocks containing their toothbrushes—so thus they
never went more than a “Sabbath day’s journey.”
These were Philadelphia lawyers before there was a Philadelphia.
But one of the most destructive form of legalism then and
now, the one that was most seriously practiced by the Pharisees, was to add to the Law of God. To bind men’s
consciences where God had left them free.
Substituting the human tradition for the Law of God. We wag our fingers at the Pharisees for doing
that, but that problem has plagues the church in every generation. The problem that we have between antinomianism
on the one hand, and legalism on the other—you might ask yourself where you
tend to fall off which side of the horse, and what kind of an atmosphere you
have at your church. To these poles of
legalism and antinomianism are the questions of “indifferent matters” and
Christian liberty. Matters that are
indifferent refers to those areas where God has not commanded to do or to
abstain from. We have Christian liberty
in that particular zone. Remember,
though, Christian liberty never gives anybody the liberty to disobey God. That’s another form of antinomianism, where
Christian liberty becomes the disguise, or the license, for licentiousness,
where people are saying, “I’m free, I’m liberated, by the Spirit (and so I can
disobey God).”
So the big issue is:
How we as Christians can co-exist, when we don’t always have the same
understanding of what it is that fits into the category of God’s “indifference”
and where our Christian liberty begins, and where it ends. That was a problem in the Corinthian church,
it was a problem in the Roman church, and it has been a problem ever since. Let’s
look at Romans 14:1-2:
Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over
doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak
eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not
eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has
received him.
Paul is saying, in the body of Christ you have weaker
brothers who have this particular scruple about that which God has not
legislated. How are you to respond to
the weaker brother? We might insist on
educating him on the spot, that our way is “correct.” No; we both belong to Christ; how dare we
judge one who is Christ’s servant? If we
are to judge, we are to judge according to the explicit standards set forth in
sacred Scripture, not by dithering about on uncertain scruples. I don’t think it is as bad today as it was 50
years ago. Then, evangelicanism was plagued
by a kind of spirit of legalism that said that if you’re a Christian, you don’t
drink, you don’t smoke, you don’t dance, you don’t play cards, and you don’t go
to movies. Now, those virtues still prevail in certain places; but this became
such a matter that one’s entire spirituality, and even Christian profession,
was to be judged by conformity to these specific taboos within the Christian
community. And you go through your
Bible, and you can’t find anything explicit about them in Scripture. So how can you judge? But these became so important that they
became the tests of one’s Christianity. A
lady who tells the waitress at a restaurant, “Oh, no, we don’t drink, we’re
Christians,” leaves the waitress with the impression that that’s what
Christianity is all about. But is that
what the Gospel is? That’s not the
apostle Paul is saying here in this Romans text. But many people have been taught that it is a
sin to do things that God does not declare to be sinful.
So, if I believe it is a sin to do these taboos, if I do it,
is it a sin? Yes! Not because the thing itself is sinful; but
what is sinful is doing something you believe to be sinful—that’s sin to do it. That’s why we all have to be exceedingly
sensitive and careful what we do around these folk. Go back to the Corinthian problem (I
Corinthians 8ff). Meat was offered to
idols in a pagan worship service, and then was sold in the marketplace—as
meat. Some Christians, not wanting a
hint of scandal, or association with paganism, said, “I’m not going to buy that
stuff. It’s been tainted.” What’s Paul’s view? Hey, it’s meat. It’s the difference of what we call primary
and secondary separation. Primary
separation is where you separate yourself from offering meat to idols, which
itself is a sin. But if I decide I have
to separate myself from anybody else who has ever offered meat to idols, or
from the meat itself, that’s what we call “secondary separation.” Actually, to be consistent in the application
of secondary separation, you’re going to have to leave the planet!—because no
matter where you are, or what you do, or from whom you buy, you’re going to be
dealing, at some level, with people who are in sin.
So how does the stronger brother deal with a brother who has
this scruple? You can make fun of him, badger him with criticisms—or you can
respect his conscience. You should say,
“I know you have this scruple, and I don’t want to make you stumble by trying
to entice you to indulge in something that you are convinced is a violation of
the Law of God.” Paul says, and I don’t
think he is just using hyperbole, “I will give up meat altogether for the sake
of my weaker brother.” That is his
attitude. If a person has a scruple that
I don’t share, and that’s unto the Lord, and because their conscience is held
captive by their understanding of the things of God, I am to bend over
backwards to be caring, loving, sensitive to that person. And not flaunt my liberty in their face. You might do it in private so as not to
scandalize the weaker brother. Thus, our liberty is not an autonomy whereby
we’re allowed to do anything we feel like doing. But it is a freedom that must always be
accompanied by a charitable sensitivity to those who have scruples that are
different from ours.
But now here’s where it gets complicated. What happens when the weaker brother wants to
elevate the scruple he or she has to the level of a moral standard for
Christianity, or a standard that must be obeyed to be a member in good standing;
or a standard that it becomes necessary to be obeyed in order to be an officer
in the church? Now, the weaker brother
becomes the legislating brother; and now he begins to take the scruple he has
and uses it to bind the consciences of the people, and destroy Christian
liberty—what do you do now?
That’s one question.
Another question that is close on its heels is the question, “who really
is the weaker brother?” How do you
discern it? You can try to extend God’s
morality, but extend it too far. We have
to be very sure that the standards we impose upon people in the church are
Biblical standards, and not our own traditional scruples. I’ve known ministers who have required of
their elders that they must sign a pledge not to have any alcoholic beverage
including wine—ever—in order to be
qualified to be an officer in the church.
Thus they make a standard in the church that would preclude the membership of the apostle Paul, and, yes, of Jesus
Himself! That same pastor will tell you
that the wine used in the Bible was not fermented. Well, it’s not so clear. Jesus was not called a wine-bibber because He
drank Welch’s grape juice. Nobody
worried about exploding old wineskins by putting grape juice in them. It’s not grape juice that “maketh the heart
glad,” and it’s not grape juice that you take for your stomach’s sake. The attempts to take a cultural thing in
America and force it upon the Mideast cannot be done. You go to Palestine and say that the
vineyards were used to make raisins and grape juice; they will laugh you to
scorn. No doubt a strong, vehement prohibition against drunkenness is needed,
but we find it too easy to add to the standards of God.
So here’s my problem.
When the pastor imposes that standard that I’ve just used as an example,
or any other such extra-Biblical standard on the elders, will that minister
admit to being a weaker brother? Unlikely. Ministers should not be weaker brothers; they
should be able to handle Scripture in a way as to not be caught up in issues of
whether to eat meat or vegetables—they should know better than that. For the solution of this conundrum, let’s
look at Galatians 2:11:
Now when Peter had come to Antioch,
I withstood him to his face…
Why? The next words: …because
he was to be blamed.
Here we have a controversy between two titans of the apostolic
community, Peter and Paul; and it’s not sensitively done in private, but to his
face; and, under the impetus of the Holy Spirit, Paul incorporates it in sacred
Scripture.
Why are we breaking the rules about sensitivity, which will
include not embarrassing him, and what about not reprimanding, that we outlined
above?
Peter, from his Cornelius event, knew it was right to eat
with the Gentiles when the Christians gathered.
But when the Judaizers came, Peter avoided the Gentiles. Paul felt that
Peter was caving in (as Scripture puts it, “played the hypocrite with them”)
to the heretical doctrine of the Judaizers—who preached that Christians must
also obey Jewish law when saved. They
had an army of scruples on matters where God had no doctrine to avoid or
affirm. Salvation did not include the
old law and its man-made burdens. We are
to live by love, and by the Holy Spirit.
Now, this is no longer the simple matter of eating
vegetables or eating meat. This had
escalated into the Judaizer heresy, where they had reinstituted the
requirements of the dietary and ceremonial laws upon Christian believers. This was serious, and the Judaizers were the
weaker brothers. These people couldn’t
live with the liberty that Christ had given them from these Old Testament
practices. Jesus gave that liberty, not
simply out of kindness, but there were profound theological concerns
there. Paul said, if you enforce
circumcision again, since the significance of circumcision has been fulfilled
once and for all in the death of Jesus Christ—who was circumcised, or cursed by
God. —then you are now placing yourselves, symbolically, again, under all of
the terms of the Old Covenant , that have already been fulfilled by Jesus—and
you’re crucifying Christ afresh. So it’s
not just a matter of scruples; it’s the matter of the Gospel. As Galatians 5:11-14 says:
And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still
suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could
wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! For you,
brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as
an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one
another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
No comments:
Post a Comment