tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post1044214969568196849..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Evangelicals Move the Goalposts on AdiaphoraKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91239518770438280552018-05-24T10:18:07.570-07:002018-05-24T10:18:07.570-07:00Lance,
I agree with your take on the conscience. ...Lance,<br /><br />I agree with your take on the conscience. The conscience and the Bible and the Holy Spirit are not the same.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-35969261746738172632018-05-24T05:17:22.390-07:002018-05-24T05:17:22.390-07:00By the way, appreciated what Mat Dvorachek has sai...By the way, appreciated what Mat Dvorachek has said.<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04407932936189262291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76162254327707887052018-05-24T05:13:11.494-07:002018-05-24T05:13:11.494-07:00Is the conscience now the new way the Holy Spirit ...Is the conscience now the new way the Holy Spirit communicates? The conscience is intended to work synergistically with knowledge and conviction of the truths of God's Word. The defining statement of Romans chapter fourteen is the last part of verse 23; "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." It could be paraphrased, "if you do not have clear instruction from God's Word from which you can find discernment('of faith'), leave it alone." The New Evangelical, Emergent, and now most Fundamentalists see this as, "if you do not have clear instruction from God's Word from which you can find discernment('of faith'), take liberty and go ahead, its OK."Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04407932936189262291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-79852078559091304992018-05-23T14:48:09.202-07:002018-05-23T14:48:09.202-07:00Mat,
I think you're right.
Christians have l...Mat,<br /><br />I think you're right.<br /><br />Christians have liberty, but liberty is defined. It isn't liberty to sin. It isn't liberty to violate the conscience. It isn't liberty to disobey church authority. It isn't liberty to cause someone to stumble. It isn't liberty to be a bad testimony.<br /><br />I am unhappy about violations of Christian liberty too, very, but that's not the bigger problem in professing Christianity. License is bigger.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-89347581304938517052018-05-23T14:41:43.631-07:002018-05-23T14:41:43.631-07:00Hi Kent,
This is something I have thought a lot a...Hi Kent,<br /><br />This is something I have thought a lot about. Here is my take on Romans 14 and "disputable matters". I'd be happy to be corrected if something I write here doesn't line up with Scripture. I hesitate because I know my interpretation on this is uncommon:<br /><br />I approach Romans 14 like any passage, wanting to understand what it says based on its own context and the context of the Bible as whole, allowing scripture to interpret scripture. With that in mind, I notice right away that this passage is about this thing called "doubtful disputations". So, I want to see if the passage says anything in context to define this term. What I find in this passage are two examples of "doubtful disputations". 1) foods to be eaten, and 2) days to be honored.<br /><br />In the context, I make a few noteworthy observations:<br /><br />1) In verse 2, it says "For one believeth", and in verse 5, it says "one man esteemeth". What that tells me is that we are dealing with topics that were commonly disputed in that day.<br /><br />2) These are both topics that the Bible clearly indicates in the affirmative--that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (I Tim. 4:4) and "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). In other words, in both cases there is liberty (Romans 14:14, 18, 20).<br /><br />It is almost universally concluded that this passage is about "issues that the Bible is silent on". I don't know how that has become the popular interpretation, because the Bible is certainly not silent on the only examples given in this passage.<br /><br />So, then, when dealing with "Romans 14" issues it ought to be held to this standard if it is indeed to be considered a "Romans 14 issue". 1) It should be something that is commonly disputed among believers today, 2) It should be something that the Bible explicitly gives liberty on.<br /><br />For example, it might be commonly disputed whether or not a person should marry somebody who is close to his/her age (just an example, and perhaps not the best). However, I Corinthians 7:39 says, "she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord". (I realize that is referring to a widow, but it's just for the sake of example.) I might have a stricter standard about this for various cultural reasons, but I ought not to judge somebody who doesn't hold to my standard, when the Bible explicitly gives liberty.<br /><br />So, I would argue that the vast majority of what evangelicals like to call "Romans 14" issues have absolute no biblical basis for being called such. Does the Bible explicitly give liberty to worship God any way we please according to any music we wish? Of course not! The Bible is, in fact, replete with examples and principles stating that God desires to be worshiped according to His standards (John 4:23). Does the Bible explicitly give liberty for us to be entertained by whatever pleases us no matter the content? No. But, in fact it says that we should not find pleasure in sinful content (Romans 1:32).<br /><br />It is my observation that evangelicals (and many fundamentalists) use Romans 14 to excuse a lot of worldly activity rather than restrict based on love as the passage actually teaches we should do(vs. 15-21). It is part of the denial of the sufficiency of scripture that is so commonly found which is used to put man in authority rather than God.<br /><br />I tried to be brief, but perhaps in doing so, I was not clear enough. Again, I realize this is hardly the popular interpretation, and biblical correction is certainly welcome.<br /><br />Thanks!<br />Mat DvorachekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com