Whirled Views with Dan Burrell

1. There is always somebody who is offended by anything we do. There is a big difference between a weaker brother mentioned by Paul in Romans 14 and a prideful, ignorant, and spiritually bigoted person. There are some Christians who refuse to grow, refuse to love, refuse to change, and are joined to their uninformed opinions. Paul is not talking about these kinds of people here. While we should be civil toward these kinds of people, we should not allow them to control our lives.
2. The weaker brother is a reference to a believer who is immature in the faith and whose conscience has not been strengthened yet by the truth. A weak brother is not weak because he is easily irritable, but because he has an uninformed conscience. This weaker brother is to be lovingly guided into the truth. As we minister to him, we should not flaunt a freedom we have, because at this stage of his Christian experience, that will bother him and retard his spiritual growth.
3. The two extremes: on one extreme you have those who have their own inspired list of what Christians should not do in their personal life and in the church as well as things that Christians should do. The majority of these things are opinions, Christian ghetto conditioning, or conditioning from ones rearing which cannot be substantiated from properly exegeted passages of Scripture. On the other extreme are those who have come out of these situations who react by saying there should be no kind of list or standard for Christians. This group tends to equate liberty with this mentality (which biblically, of course, it is not). Christian liberty or freedom alludes back to our sinful condition in Adam. In Adam we were bound in sin incapable of serving God. At regeneration the disposition to serve God is restored to us. We are now free to serve Him. If Christian freedom relates to things as petty as having a glass of wine with a meal, for example, then we have not gained anything. We could do that before regeneration. A corollary to this is a dispensational one. Being free in Christ means that we are no longer bound by the requirements of previous dispensations. To be in Christ involves living in a new administration. Thus we are free from all requirements of the Law (including the stipulations related to dress, diet, and worship). Having come out of the cage phase of their early Christian lives, they are determined not to go back.
4. Offending in the texts does not refer to someone who is upset by something we did because they disagree with us. For example, I wont ever go to a movie because Mrs. So and So might be offended (which being translated: will be mad at me). Offending means to make a person sin. Offend does not mean to displease or irritate a brother.
5. The key texts for Christian liberty are Romans 14-15; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2.
6. Definition of legalism. Legalism is not the presence of rules, standards, and convictions. If so, then God is the biggest legalist in the universe. This would then make legalism good. Even the New Testament epistles are replete with commands and exhortations. During the Kingdom Age there will be plenty of rules tooeven involving how worship is to be conducted.
7. Definition contd. There are two ways to look at legalism. One is to say that legalism is the wrong use of rules. The Law, for example, was good regarding the purposes for which God instituted it. The Jews were legalists in that they used a good thing for a wrong purpose. The Law was issued primarily for a sanctifying purpose, but they used it primarily for a justifying purpose. Thus, they were legalists. They misused the Law.
8. Definition contd. A second way to look at legalism is to make a parallel with the legalism of Jesus day. The Mosaic Law covered vast areas of life. Where it spoke to an issue, it was sin to disregard its teaching. However, the rabbis believed that the people needed specific applications in cases where the Law was not clear. There emerged from these applications the Talmud which was considered as authoritative as Scripture, because, according to them, these applications were implied in the Law. By imposing the Talmud on people, they were legalists because they made their interpretation and application as authoritative as the Law. They set themselves up as lawmakers. God is the only lawgiver. If one wants to exercise his scruples in a personal area, that is ones choice. But to add ones scruples to the list of sins already stated in Scripture is inappropriate.
9. Dangers of legalism (among many): 1) it can engender a false humility and spiritual pride (the converse is true as well). If we produce this in people by enforcing our code on them, then we have caused them to lose rewardthe very thing they are attempting to achieve (Col. 2:18); 2) legalism encourages rebellion. This is much different than the approach in #23 in which people are taught to think biblically; 3) legalism offers an unbiblical substitute for Gods way of dealing with sin. Gods way places on us the responsibility of setting up limits on what may be lawful; 4) it elevates ones legalist interpretation/application of Scripture to be equal with Scripture; 5) it burdens the believer with so many restrictions that the Christian life focuses on what ought not to be done and what has to be done. It takes the joy out of being a Christian. It leads to disillusionment because it is discovered that Christs yoke is not easy nor his burden light; 6) it teaches that self-imposed restrictions make one spiritually superior (the asceticism of monkery; Col. 2; 1 Tim. 4; 1 Cor. 7); 7) it denies biblical doctrinegrace, the goodness of creation, freedom, etc.
10. The issues in this debate, according to the text, are amoral practices. An amoral practice is in itself neither right or wrong (e.g., how one spends Sunday [and Wednesday for that matter!], men wearing earrings or pony tails, women wearing pants or cosmetics, practicing birth control, ones relationship to celluloid, smoking a pipe, listening to different types of music, pursuing the secular as a gift from God, etc.). However, what often happens (especially by the second group mentioned in #3) is that people introduce moral issues into a debate which deals with amoral issues. They try to pass off the moral as amoral. If something is objectively sinful according to Scripture, then it is not open for debate in the Christian liberty squall.
11. In this whole issue we must understand that the entire Mosaic Code has been done away. It is not biblically legitimate to divide the Mosaic Law into civil, moral, and cultic divisions as is often done. The entire Law as a unit was done away by Christs death. If this point could be grasped then many of the areas debated would dissipate (see my notes on Acts and 1 Timothy).
12. The key issue in living the Christian life is the state of the heart. This is not to say actions are unimportant. Nor is it to deny that sometimes we must make ourselves do the right thing even when we do not want to. The point is: the goal should be the transformation of the inner man, not the outer man. When this is reversed change will not be lasting and will lead to ones falling away from the Christian life.
13. We must make a distinction between preferences (as tenaciously as we might want to cling to them. And, by the way, this is why it is a good thing to have different denominations and churches. We can go where we are most comfortable. This should be encouraged.) and what is right/wrong.
14. Believe it or not, one of the main reasons for this debate, is a faulty bibliology. While we are willing to go to the stake for inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation of Scripture, we fail to deduce from these doctrines the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. If we are correct as to the nature of Scripture, then it necessarily follows, that what it does clearly say will be enough for us to have a healthy Christian life. In addition, though not often thought of like this, preservation should be considered negatively as well as positively. God not only retained in the Bible what he wanted to be there, but also kept out of the Bible what he did not want to be there. To add to the Scripture is as much condemned as removing from the Scripture. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit took care of the inspiration event for us.
15. If we are going to be dogmatic about our convictions, then we must have reasoned Scriptural support. What I think, my church thinks, or my pastor thinks, is in a sense, irrelevant (though I am a firm believer in the succession of the office of elder from the apostles). Dancing was a sin. When pressed for a biblical justification, defenders of these codes would often back down a bit and reply that although there isnt a direct verse saying thou shalt not dance, the character of such events justified blanket prohibition. We didnt have to check out each particular environment to discern whether it would be wise to dance in one but not in another. Just dont dance (Michael Horton, MR, 14, March/April 2000).
16. The weak should not be judgmental. The weak need to learn to relax and trust God to run his universe. The weak also need to have a more serious grasp of the gravity of the judgment seat. If it is true that one of the worst things a Christian can do is smoke a cigar, then God will severely discipline the person who does at the day of judgment
17. The strong may have to forego certain practices, not from his life entirely, but in the presence of a weaker brother. His goal is to love his brother and show the utmost concern for his spiritual growth. Whereas champagne is a thing indifferent, actively seeking to offend someone for the purposes of putting oneself on a pedestal is sinfuland, ironically, engages in the very self-righteousness that characterizes legalism (Michael Horton, MR, 14, Mar/Apr 2000). Love requires us not to do anything that induces another believer to act contrary to conscience. That is, these passages do not teach that we must agree with the scruples of anothers conscience nor even that we must act consistently with the scruples of anothers conscience. Rather, the texts teach that we must not say or do anything that we believe will have the effect of inducing another to act inconsistently with conscience (David Gordon, MR, March/April 2000, 34). If, however, the weaker brother is not progressing in his Christian life, refuses to be instructed, and has become embittered in his position, then my opinion is to just leave him alone and live as is deemed appropriate
18. Whatever we feel to be okay for our lives must be in concert with our conscience. However, we need to be careful here. Our consciences are affected by the Fall just as the other parts of our personalities. They can be conditioned by upbringing, dominant personalities, culture, worldliness, and lack of Scriptural understanding. We should follow our consciences with the awareness that it may have to be renewed by Scriptural truth
19. Our goal in life should be to glorify God in everything we do. We must understand that we can glorify God through the nonspiritual aspects of life with which he has blessed us. However, beware of the subtleties of sin. We want to glorify God not see how close we can come to sin
20. In all that we do we must remember our continuing depravity. We carry gunpowder about us, take heed of sparks. The Christian life is not a game. There is much at stake. Our decisions on earth will affect forever our degree of glory in heaven
21. God will be the judge
22. Enjoy the creation. There is nothing unclean in itself
23. Legalism is an extremely slippery slope. Legalists are horribly inconsistent. Once one invents a standard which is binding on all Christians, there are always numerous inconsistencies. For example, if one is forbidden to go to a movie theater, then consistency would demand not having a television (after all, if the issue is testimony, then people might think I could be watching something inappropriate; or, horror of horrors, I might be watching football on the Christian Sabbath). If Christians are not to listen to secular music, then that eliminates Irving Berlin as much as it eliminates Eric Clapton. When this inconsistency is spotted, then the legalist is forced to create even more rules and caveats. Thus, the same individual can exhort a fellow believer to refuse to join coworkers for a beer (I am not advocating this, but relaying Michael Hortons quote for the main point) under the rubric of avoiding the very appearance of evil, (though, this is not what this verse means!) while passionately embracing the worldliness of popular culture in worship and church growth strategies (Horton, 15)
24. Avoiding the appearance of evil. The word appearance in the Thessalonians passage does not mean what is commonly suggested: If something might look evil then dont do it just to be safe. Rather, the word refers to forms or manifestations of evil. Thus, the point is that the Christian should not engage in anything sinful in whatever way or form sin may manifest itself. A Living Bible type paraphrase would be dont sin.
25. Christian living and growth involves a process of prudence and decision-making. They have replaced prudence with their own will-worship, dispensing with the difficult, lifelong process of developing characterdecision by decision in context after context (Horton, 15)

Part 2 will be published at a later date….