THE CHRISTIAN LIBERTY ARGUMENT
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. -- 1 Cor. 6:12
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. -- 1 Cor. 10:23
Let your moderation be known unto all men. -- Phil. 4:5
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: -- Col. 2:16
. . . why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using ;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? -- Col. 2:20-23
The one thing that infidels, modernists, evangelicals, and antinomians have in common is the notion that IF certain behavior is not specifically and exactly prohibited (in an exact way, which they specify) by scripture, then it is not a valid prohibition. To them, human behavior must be defined by scripture as exactly as doctrinal matters are defined. In other words, exact scripture must be obeyed, but borderline situations, which involve scripture principles, even those things which were written for our examples, may be ignored. Such loophole quests are, of course, the "fruit" but not the "root" of the problem. The "root" of the problem is a misguided and mistaken rejection of the scriptural concepts of "sin," of believer's "holiness," and of "God's holiness," in favor of "muddy water" concepts, which are not as harsh or strict and more in line with the world's view of such matters. The above scripture proof-texts are among those, which more liberal brethren and church groups use to excuse one another or justify or defend certain practices and also are used to condemn stricter brethren or church groups for their stricter faith and practice. The missing ingredient, of course to the interpretation of such proof-texts is "sin." Sin is not lawful, under any circumstance. You cannot moderately sin. A Christian is not to be judged by Jewish (or Catholic) ceremonial standards in eating or drinking. Still, if it is a sin to take recreational drugs or narcotics, then he is to be judged. If the ordinance or tradition or conviction is of man and is not a Bible command or principle, it is the obligation of a Christian to ignore commandments of men. However, if the command or principle is Bible, then the Christian is bound, under grace, to obey, for the welfare of his brethren and also for testimony to the unsaved.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. -- Gal. 5:13
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; -- Titus 2:12
\Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. -- 1 Cor. 10:33
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. -- Rom. 14:21
Abstain from all appearance of evil. -- 1 Th. 5:22
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. -- Phil. 4:8
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. -- Heb. 5:14
Whatsoever is not of faith is "sin" (Rom. 14:23), despite the many shallow views of sin. Sin is "missing the mark." Where is the mark? The mark is at God's level. Would Jesus do it? Anything less than what God would do is sin. Even the "plowing" of the wicked is sin (Pro. 21:4), because it is not done in the faith. The very appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5:22) is to be shunned. Such a holiness involves the body "members" (Rom. 6:19, it is the opposite of "uncleanness" (1 Thess 4:17), and it has to do with not doing some "things" (Titus 2:3), despite the contention of some that holiness involves only or mainly spiritual activities (Lev. 10:9, 10). Where is the line? The higher the better; surely, a shallow line is inconsistent with God's holiness and with being an example of the believers (1 Tim. 4:12).
Why such mistaken, misguided, shallow, antinomian values. Perhaps, the "GRACE," which has taught many Christians, has not taught others to deny and oppose carnality, ungodliness, and worldliness. Instead, they would rather deny the principle, if not the letter, of the scriptures. But who or what has taught them that? We know multitudes of Christians, who, upon being saved, without ever seeing the scriptures, regarding certain matters, knew instinctively that something was wrong, which they, previously, never considered to be wrong. God gives this intuitive knowledge, regarding salvation AND living, to his sheep, by "grace." (Even unbelievers, to a degree, have God's law written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14, 15; Heb. 10:16). "For that righteous man (Lot-before the law) . . . vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their UNLAWFUL deeds . . . " (2 Pet. 2:8).
Perhaps, God's grace really did teach them, in the beginning, but they later succumbed to humanistic values (which may contain some intellectual or philosophical appeal). Possibly, they mistake strong meat to be high or complex doctrine, rather than exercising one's senses to discern between good and evil.
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world . . . Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. -- 1 Cor. 8:4-13
This proof-text is concerning Christian liberty, regarding non sinful practices. We know that certain brethren will call foul, when we apply it to the drinking issue, so we will preface our application by conceding that drinking is not covered by this passage, unless the drink is offered to idols. It could not be said of alcohol, “if we drink, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." The application is not there, in the strictest sense, but it is there, in principle, even if alcohol were not sin. Yet, if the brethren can be sinned against, by wounding their weak consciences and being stumbling blocks, to them, in matters that are not sinful, in themselves, how much more can they be sinned against, by causing them to stumble and be wounded, in matters that are sinful. Paul would have surely said, “If certain sin maketh my brother to offend, I will not commit a certain sin, lest I make my brother to offend." Either way, an argument can be made here, against alcohol, but we intend to prove alcohol a sin.
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. -- Rom. 14:14-15:3
When Paul says that nothing is unclean and that all things are pure, he certainly did not include adultery or drunkenness. We are persuaded that he did not mean recreational alcohol or narcotics. But the argument will be made that wine is in the same context as food, therefore alcoholic wine is pure and not unclean. But it also says "nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is made weak" and it cannot be said that anything is to be considered pure and clean. Still, can it be proved that it is even alcoholic wine in the context? You say who would grape juice offend? Rechabites, disciples of John the Baptist, Nazarites, and etc. In any case, the lesson is that our neighbor's and brother`s edification is primary. Alcohol would never edify nor strengthen him. It could and would tear him down and weaken him.
-–by Herb Evans