You like that title? It's not original. It comes from the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) [21:3]:
They who upon pretence of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives. (Romans 6:1, 2; Galatians 5:13; 2 Peter 2:18, 21)
In case you complain about those Baptist boogie men, as if whatever experience you've had or have been deceived into thinking you have had as an excuse that could nullify scriptural teaching, something almost identical is in the Westminster Confession of Faith (20:3).
I'm pointing out this one item in the the LBC and WCF because it is the historic position of the church, it isn't new, the contradiction of it is a big problem today, and it also disclaims the idea that this is a pet peeve or a recent obsession. I also like the language, "pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel," and, "destroy the end of Christian liberty."
Using foul language or gestures is a pretence of Christian liberty. You don't have liberty to do that as a Christian. That isn't salvation. The female showing her naked thighs is a pretence of Christian liberty. Playing and promoting profane music, worldly and carnal, is a pretence of Christian liberty. We have liberty to "serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives." These previous examples in this paragraph and many others represent the perverting "the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction."
I would add that calling on professing believers to destroy their idols, stop imitating the world, deny worldly lust, abstain from fleshly lust, cover their nakedness, and stop glorying in their shame is not "contrary to the word," "not contained in it," or betraying "true liberty of conscience" (LBCF 21.3). Contrariwise, God saved us from these things. The doing of them and claiming Christian liberty is but a pretense. In other words, it is pretend liberty, concocted in the imagination of the doer by which he or she can live for himself or herself and still call himself or herself a Christian.
Scripture teaches what the LBC calls "liberty of conscience." The idea here is that a believer is expressed by the words (21:1), "their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind." This is still "yielding obedience unto Him." It isn't liberty to sin against God, but to do so with "a childlike love and willing mind." It matters why we do what we do. Subjecting people to other than scriptural mandates inhibits God-honoring motivation for service.
Further investigation into the teaching of scripture upon the conscience reveals that the conscience is in part protected by rare subjugation to merely human ordinances. Even performing according to Divine design, a conscience will still respond to non-biblical or unbiblical edicts. A conscience can be harmed by adding to or taking away from what scripture teaches. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 for the freedom of conscience. A pretence of Christian liberty is not that. A Christian wants his conscience warning him against idolatry, foul language, shameful behavior, nakedness, worldliness, irreverence, and lust.
3 comments:
This is very, very helpful! Thank you! It seems that Christians have been using the phrase God's grace to justify fashioning themselves after the world and this post helps with the correct understanding. Which, of course, is what I see when I read the Bible. Christians use "God's grace" but they ignore scripture about God's chastening and sanctifying us.
Another good post, thanks. Those who complain about Baptist boogie men, don't they really mean we are Baptist Boogaloo men at least in their thinking, either way all those words are oppressive and hierarchical in nature, and yes in light of this post oppressive was intended as part of the pun, I digress and my name is not pepe. One point that is not expressly mentioned is the nature of Liberty. Wrapped up in the liberty is the idea of liberation. In salvation Christ has liberated us from the bonds of sin and satan. When the US went through France liberating cities, they did so liberating the people from the bonds of oppression by the hands of the German military. In their new found liberty those people were now free from power of the foreign invaders. A Christian's liberty is found in the freedom from the power of sin and Satan, as quoted from the LBC "...being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies..." wrapped up in this is a liberation that took place. So there was a liberation and in the aftermath we have to discern what was (sin) and what now is (liberty) some Christians fall into the category error of putting sin in the non-sin box with this respect, i.e. eating or not eating meat. Going back to the libration of the a city analog, because the citizens have a new fondness for Bavarian chocolate cake does not mean they can keep people locked up in the Ghetto. Getting to eat bacon with my eggs for breakfast does not give me the right to use foul language, this is a categorical error.
Thanks Priscilla. Thanks TTurner. I agree with both.
Post a Comment