Making Biblical Decisions: Understanding Your Conscience – April 12, 2024

As we seek to make biblical decisions, the conscience should play an essential role. We discussed the decisions we should make on debatable issues when others disagree with our choices. However, what should we do when we disagree with our decisions? This seems like a weird question. However, many people seek to suppress their guilt and feelings of anxiety and move forward with their choices, giving no thought to their conscience. Others view their conscience as though it is never wrong and end up binding themselves unnecessarily. Individuals arrive at both bad ends because they fail to understand their conscience. The conscience may be the most underappreciated and misunderstood part of the human being. Modern psychology seeks not to understand the conscience but to silence it. Rather than address the guilt from the conscience, they seek to silence the conscience through affirmation. Unfortunately, this same attitude has infiltrated the modern church as well. Many Christians seek ministers and counselors who will tickle their ears rather than address their hearts.[1]

To combat this mistreatment of the conscience, we must understand our conscience. Scripture has much to say about the conscience. In the New Testament, the word translators have translated as conscience appears thirty times. Examining these texts, we conclude that the conscience is God’s gift to man to help us towards moral purity. Some define the conscience as “your consciousness of what you believe is right and wrong.”[2] However, Romans 2 indicates that our conscience is much more. It is the God-given alarm system that alerts us to our violation of God’s Law. The Puritan Richard Sibbes defines the conscience as the soul reflecting upon itself.[3] Yet, because our conscience is part of us, it is also impacted by the Fall. As a result, it is also affected by what we believe to be right and wrong.

Therefore, the conscience is both a tremendous asset and a dangerous ally. As J. I. Packer notes, “An educated, sensitive conscience is God’s monitor. It alerts us to the moral quality of what we do or plan to do, forbids lawlessness and irresponsibility, and makes us feel guilt, shame, and fear of the future retribution that it tells us we deserve, when we have allowed ourselves to defy its restraints.”[4] In the right place, the conscience is a wonderful asset for Christlike sanctification and a necessary protection against sin.

Yet our conscience is also subject to the Fall and, therefore, not inerrant. Satan seeks to use our conscience against us. He corrupts and desensitizes our conscience so that it will not alert us to evil. Satan uses the worldly attitudes and beliefs surrounding us to dull our conscience to sin. As we consistently encounter sin, we fail to take notice. When we do notice, our conscience brings guilt, shame, and unease. Sibbes compared the feelings aroused by the violated conscience to “a flash of hell.”[5] Because these feelings are painful, the world informs us that guilty feelings are always erroneous and hurtful. Just ignore them.

As we ignore the conscience’s feelings, we begin to fail to notice any presence of our conscience. I grew up just a few blocks from Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, Colorado. Every day, a squadron of F-16s would take off and fly around the city. Visitors consistently noticed and commented on the aircraft noise. Bizarrely, those of us who lived there never noticed the noise. Our minds had filtered it out so much that we rarely noticed it. When visitors noticed, we acknowledged what they heard and informed them that they would no longer notice in a short while. In the same way, Satan uses constant confrontation with sin in our lives and culture to dull our conscience to its presence and effects.

When Satan cannot dull our conscience, he heightens our conscience so that it falsely accuses us and unnecessarily binds us. He cripples us with guilt over things that are not sin. He causes us to call things sin, which are not sin, and undermine the gospel in our lives. Rather than enjoying the freedom God grants through the gospel, we become bitter and resentful as we seek to please God through our self-righteousness. Both cases (the dull and the heightened conscience) reveal that while it is a gift of God, the conscience is not inerrant. So, we cannot always heed Jiminy Cricket’s advice to let our conscience be our guide. Yet, neither can we afford to ignore it.

As Christians examine the Old Testament, they strangely discover a seeming absence of any reference to the conscience. However, this absence is not because the conscience is a New Testament invention. Instead, the conscience is so much a part of us that the Hebrew mind did not distinguish between the conscience and the individual. They viewed the inner person and the conscience as inseparable.[6] A well-known example of this blending of the conscience with the inner person can be examined in Exodus. When God, through Moses, commanded Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, Moses informs us that Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (Exod. 8:15). Pharaoh ignored his conscience (his heart) and turned off the God-given alarm system.

Blending the inner person with the conscience is important because it informs us that we cannot ignore the conscience (for it is an essential God-given asset). Nor, as fallen creatures with an innate sinful nature, can we afford to assign an all-knowing nature to the conscience (doing so would make it a dangerous ally). Instead, we must seek to hold our conscience in its rightful, God-given place and treat it in a way that it can accomplish its rightful, God-given purpose. Next week, we will address how we can hold the conscience in its rightful, God-given place. To do this, we must understand how our conscience is corrupted and redeemed.



[1] John MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 1995), 50.

[2] Andrew David Naselli and J. D. Crowley, Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2016), 42.

[3] Alexander B. Grosart, ed., Works of Richard Sibbes (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, n.d.), 3:208.

[4] J. I. Packer, Rediscovering Holiness (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1992), 151.

[5] Grosart, Works of Richard Sibbes, 3:210–11.

[6] MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience, 37.

 


Good Friday – March 29, 2024

Today we celebrate Christ’s death. Two thousand years ago, on that fateful day, Christ suffered and died for our sins. As you meditate on Christ’s death today, here is a rough schedule of that day Christ purchased our redemption:

4:00-6:00 am – Jesus was brought before Caiaphas and Annas for trial. They could not find anything to convict Jesus, so a false witness was brought. Asked if He is the Christ, Jesus responded, “You have said it yourself.” He was then beaten and spit on.

As Jesus stood before Caiaphas and Annas, Peter made his way to the courtyard outside. Confronted about being one of the Jesus People, he flatly denied it. By the third confrontation, he began to curse. Then the rooster crowed; Peter saw Jesus leaving the compound and wept in shame.

6:00-8:00 am – Daylight appeared, and the Jewish leaders dragged Jesus to Pilate for sentencing. However, Pilate had no desire to become involved in what he perceived to be a no-win situation. He stated, “I find no guilt in this man.” Asking if Jesus is Galilean, Pilate found a jurisdiction loophole. So, he sent Jesus to Herod, who oversaw Galilee.

Herod attempted to question Jesus, but Jesus kept silent. Finally, Herod allowed his soldiers to abuse Jesus and sent Him back to Pilate.

When Jesus arrived back before Pilate, Pilate continued to question Jesus. However, Jesus continued to remain silent. Marveling at Jesus’ composure, Pilate offered the gathering crowd the opportunity to release Jesus. However, with the urging of the religious leaders, the crowd demanded that Pilate release a thief and murderer named Barabbas instead. They then demanded that Pilate crucify Jesus. After symbolically washing his hands, Pilate turned Jesus over for death.

After Jesus was condemned, the soldier renewed their abuse. They whipped Him, beat Him, jammed a crown of thorns on His head, and put a purple robe on His bloody and tattered body. After humiliating Jesus, they removed the robe and prepared a bloody and battered Jesus for death.

8:00-8:30 am – Jesus began the trek through the city and outside the walls to Golgotha for crucifixion. Having endured so much abuse, He could not carry His cross. The soldiers grabbed a man named Simon from the crowd and forced him to take Jesus’ cross the rest of the way.

As Jesus made his way to Golgotha, a crowd followed him weeping. Jesus turned and told them not to weep for Him but for themselves. For, if the leaders did this when Jesus was with them, what would they do when He was gone?

9:00 am – The group arrived at Golgotha. They stretched Jesus’ arms across the beam and nailed his wrists to the wood. They then nailed his ankles to the vertical piece and hoisted the cross in place. The process of procuring our redemption had begun.

9:00-9:30 am – Jesus was offered a drink to numb the pain, but He refused. Having completed their work, the soldiers settled in for a day of watching the criminals die. They began to cast lots to determine who got to take home the various items of the criminal’s clothing.

The soldiers placed a placard over Jesus stating His “crime”: He was the King of the Jews. He cries out, “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do!”

9:30-11:00 am – The Chief Priests, Scribes, and soldiers begin to abuse Jesus verbally. “He saved others; He cannot save Himself.” “He is the King of Israel, let Him come down from the cross, and we will believe.” Of course, they wouldn’t believe it. Jesus had done various miracles, but they only cared for their power. “He trusts in God; let God rescue Him. He claims to be the Son of God.” The two thieves began to get in on the verbal abuse through the pain. “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

11:00 am -12:00 pm – One of the thieves fell under conviction and rebuked the other thief. He then turned to Jesus and asked to be remembered when Christ came to His Kingdom. Jesus responded with forgiveness, “Today you will be with Me in paradise!”

Through the pain, Jesus looked down and observed a group of women, His mother, and John. He instructed John to care for Mary. And from that day forward, John took her into his house. Even in death, Jesus continued to show compassion.

12:00-3:00 pm – An eerie three-hour darkness fell across the land. The sun would not shine on the death of its Creator. After hanging on the cross all morning, Jesus’ body began to dehydrate from the loss of fluids, and his lungs screamed out for oxygen. Pushing up against the nails, He struggled for a breath. But the dehydration would cause his muscles to cramp, and he would drop back down and begin to suffocate.

The darkness continued, and our sin was placed on Jesus. The Father turned His face away from His Son for the first time. Jesus cried out, “My Father, My Father, why have You forsaken Me?” He was made sin for us!

Suffering from intense dehydration and suffocation and knowing that only one Scripture remained which He needed to fulfill, Jesus cried out, “I thirst!” Someone brought a sponge dipped in sour wine.

Redemption had been paid. Jesus cried out, “It is finished!” Paid in full! He paid a debt he did not owe and placed righteousness on the accounts of the elect. Jesus then cried out again with a loud voice, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit!” And the Savior died. Earth raged. A great earthquake struck, rocks split, the veil in the Temple ripped, and tombs opened. The Centurion stated in awe, “He was the Son of God!”

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24)

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6)



Making Biblical Decisions: The Principle of the Conscience – March 22, 2024

A few weeks ago, the check engine light came on in my wife’s car. The car was running well. There did not seem to be any problems, but the light was on. The manufacturer informs us that the light means the engine is not running properly and needs attention. All seemed to be well, but the light begged to differ. Naturally, I had one of the guys in the church hook up his code scanner to the car to inform me of the problem. After the scan, we discovered that the problem was insignificant. In fact, the nature of the problem could be ignored with no harm to the engine. The only issue would be that the light would remain on. If something significant happened, the light would already be on, and I wouldn’t know of the new problem. As this is the car my wife primarily drives, I did not want to risk any issues, so I changed the faulty solenoid. Should the light come back on, I know there is another problem. In short, I listened to the check engine light.
 
I have had vehicles with which I made a different decision. I determined that the light was something I could tolerate. The problem was not a problem, and I continued with life. I relied on other things to inform me of the engine’s performance. I drove those cars for years with the check engine light on. Interestingly, after just a few short days, I didn’t even notice that the light was on. Sometimes, passengers would get into the car and tell me the check engine light was on. I would shrug and go about my day. The light no longer bothered me. The light was not speaking the truth. There was not a problem, so I ignored it.
 
The check engine light serves as an excellent illustration of the conscience. Everyone has a conscience. God placed the conscience in our lives to warn us of impending problems. However, the conscience is not infallible. Sometimes, the conscience warns us of issues that are not problems; sometimes, the conscience does not warn us when it should. Further, we have a choice when our conscience warns us. We can choose to ignore the conscience or listen to the conscience.
 
As we seek to make biblical decisions, the conscience should play an essential role. We discussed the decisions we should make on debatable issues when others disagree with our choices. However, what should we do when we disagree with our decisions? This seems like a weird question. However, many people seek to suppress their guilt and feelings of anxiety and move forward with their choices, giving no thought to their conscience. As we will see over the next few weeks, this is a dangerous decision for people to make. We will seek to balance the advice of Jiminy Cricket to always let your conscience guide you, and the advice of modern psychology to ignore the conscience. Through this middle ground, we will discover the great gift that God gave humanity in the conscience.

 



Making Biblical Decisions: The Offended Brother and the Obstinate Brother – March 15, 2024

Are there times, however, when believers should not surrender their rights to another brother but instead stand for the truth of their position? We have discussed the challenge of a fellow believer who may be prone to sin should we practice our liberty in their presence. But are there times when the believer is not prone to sin due to our practice but is already sinning in self-righteous judgment and demands that everyone else do what they want? One does not need to spend much time around Christians to discover such an individual. In these cases, how does the principle of love play out?
 
When the believer faces these positions, we must remember that the goal is not simply appeasing other Christians or avoiding conflict. As Naselli and Crowley state, “Christian freedom is not ‘I always do what I want.’ Nor is it ‘I always do whatever the other person wants.’ It is ‘I always do what brings glory to God. I do what brings others under the influence of the gospel. I do what leads to peace in the church’.”[1] With this in mind, we discover three situations in Scripture that help us determine the best course of action.
 
The first situation deals with individuals who have willfully added to the gospel through their legalistic actions. These individuals begin to judge other’s salvation by their set of standards. In this, the gospel subtly becomes Christ + my standards. Sam Storms defines legalism as “the tendency to regard as divine law things that God has neither required nor forbidden in Scripture, and the corresponding inclination to look with suspicion on others for their failure or refusal to conform.”[2]  When we face these individuals, we are obligated to the gospel over their convictions.
 
Paul instructed the Romans and Corinthian believers to restrain their freedom for their fellow believer’s conscience. However, one situation arose in which Paul did not restrain his freedom and called out those who differed. In Galatians 2:11-14, certain individuals came to the Galatian churches from Jerusalem. These Jewish believers still believed that conformity to the diet in the Mosaic Law was required for salvation. When they came to these churches, they separated from the Galatian believers. They also persuaded Peter to join them through their actions. In this instance, Gospel truth was at stake. As a result, Paul did not restrain his freedom to eat unkosher meat and join the Jewish believers. Instead, Paul boldly and publicly rebuked Peter (and the Jewish believers) for their position. So we see that when the Gospel truth is at stake, we cannot afford to restrain our freedom.
 
Legalists sometimes don’t add to the gospel but add to sanctification. They are not tempted to violate their conscience by following us. Instead, they simply demand their way. They are the obstinate believers. Their sin is one of self-righteousness and grasping for power. These people tend to divide the church and disturb its peace through their prideful demands that others do what they want. Jesus faced these very people in the Pharisees. He regularly called out their hypocrisy and jealousy of power. He healed, traveled, and ate on the Sabbath even though he knew the Pharisees saw it as evil. “The concern here is not simply that your freedom may irritate, annoy, or offend your weaker brother or sister. If a brother or sister simply doesn’t like your freedoms, that is their problem. But if your practice of freedom leads your brother or sister to sin against their conscience, then it becomes your problem.”[3] We must care for the offended brother and rebuke the obstinate brother. I should note that Christians should seek counsel from their spiritual leaders to determine if this is the case. You need God’s wisdom to discern between the offended brother (the one whose conscience is wavering due to your action) and the obstinate brother disrupting the gospel and the church’s peace through their selfishness.
 
Please don’t assume that fellow believers who hold a different position are being strict because they are neurotic people. Instead, think the best of those individuals. In many cases, they are as concerned for God’s glory as you are.[4] Thus, we should pursue peace whenever possible. For this reason, Paul would restrain his freedom when he came to Jewish believers. If the fellow believer just doesn’t like my position but is not obstinate about it, love would call me to care for them and seek peace. The principle of love encourages those of strong conscience to care for other believers. So, I am free to refrain from practicing my freedom as I seek to promote gospel living and peace within the church.
 
There is a difference between the offended brother and the obstinate brother. Each case requires God’s wisdom, humility, and grace to act in a way that pleases God. Sometimes, I refrain from practicing my freedom for my fellow believer’s sake. Yet, when Gospel truth is at stake, I stand for the Gospel. And when the obstinate brother disrupts the peace within the body of Christ through their sinful demands, I do not consent but hold to truth for the sake of my fellow believers. In all things, my love for God and others drives my decisions.
 
___________________________________________

[1] Andrew David Naselli and J. D. Crowley, Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2016), 115.

[2] Sam Storms, Tough Topics: Biblical Answers to 25 Challenging Questions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 311.

[3] Naselli and Crowley, Conscience, 109.

[4] Naselli and Crowley, 95.



Making Biblical Decisions: Handling Differences with Biblical Love, Part 5 – March 8, 2024

Many of the issues Christians argue about and divide over today are issues of application (conscience) and not actual sin. Like the Pharisees of old, Christians love to bind heavy burdens upon their fellow believers and demand that they act and believe in what they do. Further, many of these issues of conscience are emotionally charged, and each individual is convinced of their correct stand. To ensure purity, Christians often unintentionally sin against God and their fellow believers through a lack of love. Christ taught in John 13:35 that our love for fellow believers reveals our standing with God. As observed in the first principle of decision making, we do not allow clear black-and-white sin to go unchecked. However, we have moved many items into this category without a biblical basis. As a result, each Christian must examine the Word in its context to ensure that we are not saying “thus says the Lord” when the Lord has not spoken.

When these issues of conscience arise, we ought to love our fellow believers more than our position. Our arrogant attitudes, which demand our way, reveal that our walk with God is lacking. Yet, when we graciously prefer our fellow believers, we reveal that the Kingdom of God matters more than anything else. Accomplishing this kind of sacrificial love takes intentional humility. I want to conclude this principle with two illustrations of how I have sought to work this principle out.

Alcoholic beverages have had a horrendous impact on my extended family. Through the years, some family members have given themselves to drink and cost themselves their family, fortunes, and health. As a result, my parents raised me as a “teetotaler.” Further, the realm of Christianity in which I was raised would often twist Scripture to state that any consumption of alcohol is a sin. Yet, a careful examination of Scripture reveals that consuming alcohol is not a sin. Instead, drunkenness is a sin.

After working through the principles of biblical decision-making in my life, I remain a “teetotaler.” As I seek to be honest with Scripture, I cannot say that consuming alcoholic beverages is a sin. However, as I examine my propensities, I recognize that alcoholic beverages pose a significant risk of addiction for me. They will control me. As a result, I chose in wisdom not to participate.

How does this principle of love work out in this situation? First, as I sit at the table with fellow believers, I do not cast disparaging judgment on their spiritual lives if they order a glass of wine with their dinner. I assume their ability to exercise control and moderation. Should they fail to exercise control and moderation and become drunk, we move into the case of sin, and I must address it. However, when they exercise control and moderation, I recognize that they answer to one Judge, which is not me.

On the other hand, suppose I am the other person sitting at the table with me in this situation. How should I handle it? Suppose I am aware that the person I am eating with is a teetotaler out of love. In that case, I should refrain from ordering an alcoholic beverage out of love and respect for that individual. My love for them should overrule my liberty. Notice that the love for the other person dictates both responses. As a teetotaler, when I sit at a meal with someone who consumes alcohol in moderation, I do not judge them out of love for them. I assume the best of them. On the other hand, if I exercise liberty when I sit at a meal with a teetotaler, in that case, I refrain from exercising my freedom out of love for them. Love for your fellow believers is more important than anything you drink.

During the COVID scare of 2020, masks became a raging debate worldwide. Some viewed them as useless, and others viewed them as vital. At the outset, I recognize that many governments mandated masks and there could be a debate regarding their right to do so. However, for our purposes here, I am ignoring that question altogether. Instead, the issue here deals with the convictions and beliefs of your fellow believers. Like most pastors and Christians, I had to navigate these waters as best as possible.

As I applied this principle, I came up with a practice that could be observed each Sunday for that year. Some in the church viewed masks as a waste of time. Any who wore them compromised their individual freedom and became a threat to religious liberty. Others viewed masks as mandatory. They suffered from chronic illness or disease and were at risk of complications should they become sick. Others believed they had a scriptural mandate to submit to the government in this way. With these wildly diverging opinions, the principle of love became a life preserver for Christian unity.

Each Sunday, I carried around a mask in my pocket. As I greeted or spoke with a group of people wearing a mask (for whatever reason), I would take the mask out of my pocket and wear it out of love and respect for them. When I greeted or spoke with a group of people not wearing masks (for whatever reason), I would leave the mask in my pocket. My goal was not wishy-washy compromise but genuine love and a desire to serve all for the Gospel’s sake. In neither case was it my place to judge my fellow believer’s heart in this case of application and conscience. They answer to one Judge, and it is not me.

So you see, love can drive unity, but a lack of love for fellow believers reveals a lack of love for God. We live in a world that views self-sacrifice as sinful compromise. However, in areas of conscience, love is often revealed by compromise. We must love our fellow believers more than our demands. As we make decisions, ask, “Does this action serve and demonstrate love for my fellow believer?” and “How will this impact my fellow believer?” We should echo Paul’s words, “If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (1 Corinthians 8:13).



Making Biblical Decisions: Handling Differences with Biblical Love, Part 4 – March 1, 2024

When a Christian ignores their fellow believer’s conscience and convictions, they stand in danger of bringing both themself and their fellow believer into sin. When we destroy the fellow believer through our selfish freedom, we allow the good we do to be seen as evil. Paul concludes in 1 Corinthians 8:13 that it is better never to practice your freedom than to cause another believer to fall into sin. Our love for others should outweigh our love for self.

We can keep this viewpoint when we remember the purpose of the Christian life. In Romans 14:17-19, Paul reminds us that the Kingdom of God is not about earthly pleasure but righteous living. Galatians 5 informs us that the works of the flesh result in conflict and harm. However, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, and longsuffering. Often, Christians care more about their positions than their fellow believer’s conscience. These actions reveal that they do not understand Christ’s call on their life to discipleship.

Mark 8 stands as the centerpiece of Mark’s important gospel. Many will recognize the events of the chapter as Christ asked His disciples who people believed He was. The disciples responded with the various popular views about Jesus, which were all wrong (they believed Jesus was Elijah, Moses, or one of the great prophets who returned from the grave). Jesus then asked who the disciples thought Jesus was. At this point, Peter (speaking for the disciples) declares his famous confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus follows this confession by revealing that He would die and rise again for our sins.

However, after Jesus’ stunning revelation to the disciples that He would suffer, die, and rise again, Peter rebuked Jesus and told Him this was not the way. Jesus’ following command is even more stunning. Bringing the crowd to Him, He then informs them that this is the way, and if they are to follow him as disciples, this is also the way for them. Mark 8:34 informs us that being a disciple of Jesus means denying ourselves, taking up our cross, and following Jesus.

First, discipleship means that Christian love will deny self. Self-denial goes against every grain of our sinful nature. We inherently believe that life is about us. So profoundly is pride rooted in the hearts of men that they think wrong is done to them and complain if God does not comply with everything they consider proper. They trample other believers with different convictions, considering them weak, immature, and ill-informed. Yet, these actions reveal that they do not understand discipleship.

This denial of self is more than giving up doughnuts for lent. Self-denial is more than dropping a couple of bucks in the offering plate as it goes by. Self-denial means that you completely turn your back on yourself. It means you no longer determine your goals, aspirations, and desires. You no longer insist that you have the freedom for certain actions and trample your brother’s spirit. Jesus informs the crowd that if they would be his disciple, they must abandon their self-righteousness and sin and submit wholly to him.

In verse 35, Jesus gives us the importance of self-denial. Whoever will save his life will destroy it. The one who tries to live on his terms will ruin it. This is why Paul stated that he counted all the things of value in this world as trash so that he could come to know Christ crucified (Philippians 3:8). What many believers fail to realize is that their unkind and selfish flaunting of freedom or judgmental spirit of conviction reveals their sinful heart, not their intense discipleship. Out of a desire to enjoy today, they ruin their life.

We live in the most affluent society in the history of humanity. The modern world’s dream has driven this affluence. The idea is that with hard work and drive, you can be whatever you want, combined with the promise of comfort if you do. As a result, humankind lives for pleasure and fun. Too many Christians live for themselves. But what if this is not the way of Christ? What if the call from Christ is actually to say no to ourselves? This is what Christ is telling us: we are to give up our dreams and ambitions for the cause of Christ.

This self-denial requires that we love God and others more than ourselves. This self-denial means that we view the world through an eternal lens. The things of this world will perish. The Kingdom of God will reign eternally. Yet, we demand our way today because we do not understand God’s plan for tomorrow. We fail to recognize that life is not about us or our pleasure. So we exalt self instead of denying self. We become arrogant and unteachable because we view other’s convictions as immature and irrational. We fail to recognize that the way of discipleship is through the gate of self-denial.

While the gate to discipleship is self-denial, the pack we carry on the path of discipleship is the cross. Taking up the cross was a proverbial expression. Still, this occurrence referred to readiness to endure even the most painful and shameful death in following Christ. We have romanticized the cross today. We use crosses as decoration. We put the cross on jewelry. And some even tattoo it on their body. We have made the cross safe and secure. But there is nothing safe about the cross.

This call to take up our cross refers to the Roman practice of parading condemned criminals through the city. At the same time, they carried the cross’ heavy horizontal beam to the place of their execution. When they arrived, their arms were outstretched and attached with nails or ropes to that beam. The beam was then hoisted up on a post so that the criminal could be exposed to the crowd until he died. As Pastor John MacArthur states, “Unlike contemporary forms of execution, crosses were designed to prolong the agony of death for as long as possible. As instruments of torture, shame, and execution, they were reserved for the worst criminals, offenders, and enemies of the state. The Romans crucified their victims in public, along highways, as a gruesome reminder of what happened to those who defied Caesar’s imperial authority.”[1]

As the crowd stood by watching the condemned criminal die, they would often mock and ridicule the condemned. They would curse at them and taunt them. The entire experience exposed the criminal to emotional shame as well as physical shame. In the same way, Jesus is calling his followers to die to themselves and to accept the shame that comes with following Christ. He calls his followers to give up this world and take their place alongside Him on the cross.

When the disciples in the crowd heard Jesus speak of taking up the cross, there was nothing mystical to them about the idea. They immediately pictured a poor, condemned soul walking along the road carrying the instrument of his execution on his own back. A man who took up his cross began his death march, carrying the very beam on which he would hang. So, for a disciple of Christ to take up his cross, he must be willing to start on a death march. To be a disciple of Jesus Christ is to be willing, in his service, to suffer the indignities, the pain, and even the death of a condemned criminal.

When we deny ourselves and take up our cross, we follow Christ down the road of discipleship. Following Christ entails a wholesale buy-in to his cause. This call to discipleship means that we follow Christ in everything. It is a call for continual and total obedience. Following Jesus requires continuing determination to stick to the chosen path. What this means is that there is no category of Christian who knowingly, continually, and unrepentantly waves the white flag and resubmits himself to a life characterized by and dominated by sin. Nor is there any category of Christian for a person who lives for this world, who lives for self, who lives for pleasure or ease. Neither should a Christian willingly sacrifice his fellow believer for his comfort or ideas. Following Jesus means that we desire what Jesus desired, that His people would be sanctified (John 17:17). This desire leads us to sacrifice ourselves for the good of those Christ loves.
 
____________________________________________________

[1] John MacArthur, Mark 1-8 (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2015), 427.



Making Biblical Decisions: Handling Differences with Biblical Love, Part 3 – February 23, 2024

Suppose two believers can come to polar opposite conclusions on issues of conscience, and both are right. How can they interact with one another in unity? Many of these gray areas carry heavy emotional baggage that can result in explosive conflict. How can two walk together unless they agree? Paul reveals in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 that the answer lies in our priorities. We must value our fellow believer’s conscience more than our opinion. To help us understand the reasoning behind this statement, Paul presents the argument through three principles that build on the previous principle.

First, Paul informs Christians of the stumbling block principle. In Romans 14:13 and 1 Corinthians 8:9, Paul encourages Christians to determine not to place a stumbling block in the way of their fellow believer. The picture is of an impediment placed before a person on a path they seek to walk, which causes a challenge to move forward or to turn back. In Romans 14:13, Paul also adds the word “hindrance.” This word refers to the stick in a trap that would fall when the animal touched it, resulting in the animal’s ensnarement. When we insist that others agree with us on the issues of conscience instead of considering their conscience, we risk trapping them in sin.

The principle then informs us that we ought to be careful that our actions do not cause our fellow believers to sin. We should seek to help our fellow believer grow in their Christian walk instead of presenting a challenge to their Christian walk. When we knowingly flaunt engagement in an action that other believers consider sin, we hinder their walk with God. Flaunting this “freedom” contrasts with the sign of discipleship: love for one another (John 13:35).

The principle that flaunting freedom results in our fellow believer’s sin builds on the previous principle. As Paul pictures the results of a believer flaunting their disagreements with one another, he identifies two bitter results. The believers begin to engage in judgment against one another. Because each believer is convinced that they stand in truth, they naturally assume their fellow believer stands in error. In arrogance, they begin to judge the state of the other believer’s Christian walk and look at them with pity and disdain. They fail to recognize the possibility that both believers stand in faithful communion with God. So Paul reminds the church that God alone stands as our Judge. He holds our eternal fate in His hands. So then let us be fully persuaded in our own minds of our beliefs and leave other’s conclusions to God.

Unfortunately, Paul also foresees a second result. As those believers who might be viewed as more mature and faithful flaunt their freedom, those more immature (perhaps newer) believers may begin to question their judgment. Although their conscience plagues them when they participate in the action, they conclude they must join to be faithful Christians. Yet, Paul reveals that the act of violating our conscience is sin. This is the meaning of Romans 14:23. When we violate our conscience and do something we feel is wrong, we sin. Paul goes so far as to say that the stronger Christian destroys the weaker Christian through uncaring actions, leading the weaker Christian to sin by violating their conscience (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11).

The final principle is the principle of sin leading to sin. Two believers sin when one believer leads another to violate their conscience. The second believer sins by violating their conscience. However, the first believer does not stand innocent. Although he rightly concludes that he may participate in the given action without sin, the first believer wrongly concludes that he can lead the other believer to violate their conscience without sin. Paul informs us that causing others to sin is sin (1 Cor 8:12). We might conclude that we are not responsible for other Christian’s weak conscience. However, the principle of love argues otherwise. Our actions fail to value our fellow believers in the same way Christ values them. Christ died to redeem, justify, sanctify, and glorify that believer. When we selfishly ignore or arrogantly oppress our fellow believer’s conscience, we reveal a love for self over love for Christ. And, in so doing, we sin against Christ.



Making Biblical Decisions: Handling Differences with Biblical Love, Part 2 – February 16, 2024

The conflict over gray issues in the ancient church centered in two primary areas: eating meat offered to idols and the celebration of feast days and the sabbath. We find both of these issues addressed in Paul’s Epistle to Rome and Paul’s First Epistle to Corinth as both churches found themselves surrounded by pagan Roman culture. From the modern standpoint, each of the issues may appear frivolous, yet these issues threatened to break apart the newly established churches. For each issue was deeply ingrained in the culture surrounding the church. When we understand the way these threats presented themselves in the ancient church, we can then begin to draw straight lines into issues we face today.

The Roman society was extremely and openly pagan. As Rome conquered the surrounding countries, they would adopt some of those countries’ gods and add them to their own pantheon of gods. Another significant aspect of the Roman religious system consisted of ancestor worship. Each family looked to great members of their family who had died for help in their present life. They believed these ancestors could assist them from beyond the grave.

The central part of Roman worship was a sacrificial system. The members of society would bring the best of their animals to sacrifice to the various gods. After the sacrificial ritual, the city would often celebrate a feast in the temple serving the very meat they just sacrificed. The Romans viewed these feasts as necessary for a healthy society. They viewed any who did not participate in the feasts with suspicion and considered those individuals unpatriotic. Because the entire city gathered at these feasts, they also served as a prime opportunity to conduct business.

When the feasts ended, the pagan temple leaders would then sell any leftover meat. It was the best meat available, and it was the cheapest meat available. However, the ancient church faced an important and divisive question, “If you purchased this meat, would you be supporting idolatry?” In addition, for the newly saved Jewish population, often the meat consisted of those animals declared unclean in the Mosaic Law. Already struggling with the place of the Mosaic Law upon the church, the temple meat provided another area of battle in this issue. As the church faced these questions, they divided into two camps.

One group consisted of those who had no problem eating the meat offered to the idols. While few believed they could participate in the temple feast, a significant group did not struggle purchasing the meat from the temple meat market. They rightly pointed to Christ’s teaching in Mark 7.

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Mark 7:14-19)

The food restrictions were for a time for Israel under the Mosaic covenant to demonstrate that they were different, that they had a major sin problem. But the death of Christ freed us from the Law. So, Christ declared all things clean. This is why you can enjoy a wonderful ham today without violating Scripture.

This group also recognized that the meat was only meat. It was neither inherently good or sinful. The fact that the meat had been sacrificed to a pagan god did not change the meat itself. As a result, they believed that they could eat this meat without condoning the pagan sacrificial system. They would argue that the meat was good meat and it was cheap meat. To purchase this good meat at a discounted price was a practice of good stewardship of the funds entrusted to them by God. In addressing this issue with the Church at Corinth, Paul acknowledges this viewpoint.

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, 8)

However, another group had a serious problem with Christians eating the meat sacrificed to idols. As some newly converted Jews still viewed the Mosaic Law as binding on the believer, they saw this meat as a violation (Leviticus 11:4-8). They had not yet realized their freedom in Christ from the Mosaic Law to eat this meat. Another section of this group, newly saved out of the pagan idolatry, firmly believed that they would support and participate in the idolatrous practices if they ate the meat offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8:7). The temple leaders used the meat in their pagan sacrificial systems and served it in the pagan feasts. The money used to purchase the meat in the market would go into the pagan temple coffers. This group could not understand how it was possible to purchase and eat meat from the pagan temple without it being considered as participation in idolatry.

In addition to the meat issue, another issue arose which was also closely related to both the Mosaic Law and the idolatrous practices of the day. This issue surrounded the concept of feast days and the Sabbath. For the Jews, the Sabbath was a central part of their upbringing. For the Gentiles, the feast days were central to the society in which they lived. As Rome conquered the world, they would institute celebratory holidays for the citizens to honor. The celebrations centered on the sacrifices to the gods. As we mentioned before, these sacrifices would then be served in a feast in the temple. The Romans viewed these special days as dedications of celebrations to the gods who assisted them in conquering the world. Every good Roman citizen participated. If the citizens did not celebrate the day, they were viewed with suspicion.

Again, the church divided into two groups. The first group consisted of Jews who believed that the church must still honor the Sabath (Exodus 20:8). Further, there was a strong debate surrounding the feast days. In order to be a good member of society and maintain relationships, this group argued that the Christian should celebrate the holidays. They maintained that one could celebrate Rome’s accomplishments without celebrating Rome’s gods. They believed that they should participate in the celebration, perhaps out of a concern for an opportunity to share the gospel or for their own ability to conduct their business.

The second group recognized Christ’s teaching in Mark 2:27-28 that the Sabath was made for man and not man for the Sabath. Their conscience allowed them to honor Sabath rest without the restrictions of the Mosaic Law. Another section of this group believed that if believers participated in the pagan feast days, they were participating in the pagan feasts. Any argument otherwise was simply viewed as pragmatic compromise.

These controversies created a significant impact in the church as the issues of meat and feast days created a significant impact in the ancient church. As the church in that day, and we in this day, look at the conflicts, the natural question arises, “Who was right?” This is an important question. To participate in idolatry is to deny God. Yet, Scripture also indicates that the Christian ought to practice good stewardship, engage with the world around them, and are free from the Mosaic Law. Paul composed Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 to answer this question. The clearest answer appears in Romans 14:5-6:

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

In other words, the answer is that both were right. It is possible for two believers to have polar opposite opinions in these gray areas and both be right.

Next week we will look at how we should respond to other believers who come to different correct conclusions than we do.



Making Biblical Decisions: Handling Differences with Biblical Love – February 2, 2024

On many things, Scripture is clear on the Christian’s position to stand side by side with God. The Christian need not wonder about God’s view of adultery, theft, or murder. Yet, throughout life, every Christian faces decisions that fall into unclear categories. In these issues, Scripture neither affirms nor condemns these situations.

Unfortunately, Scripture’s lack of clarity has not stopped well-meaning believers from taking up arms on both sides of these issues. Throughout the years, Christians debated whether smoking or alcohol consumption should be classified as a sin. In some Christian circles, the debate surrounds the morality of women wearing pants or other “revealing” clothing. As children’s sports encroach into Sunday, Christians debate whether Christian families should participate. I can recall conversations surrounding specific genres of music, going to the movie theatre, and even what particular version of the Bible individuals chose to read. Scripture does not present black and white “thou shalt not” solutions to these issues. Instead, these issues reside in the gray.

As Christians face these issues, they often find themselves ill-equipped to make biblical decisions. As a result, they then move to emotion and reason. Unfortunately, unwilling to acknowledge that they have no biblical basis for their choices, they resort to proof-texting their decisions and inevitably rip Scripture out of its context and begin to say things that God never said. Armed with proof texts and high emotion, they start to battle and cast judgment and disdain on all who disagree. 

Yet, God has given us everything we need for life and godliness in His Word, so we need not resort to proof-texting and emotion for our decisions. Instead, we must faithfully seek the principles of God’s Word to respond with godly intention instead of emotional reaction in these moments. Our goal in biblical decision-making is to live intentionally instead of reacting. In short, we must learn how to handle differences with biblical love.

The challenge to address gray issues is not a modern challenge. From its founding, the Church faced contention and disagreement over these issues. As we read the New Testament, we discover that these gray issues threatened to split at least two churches: the Church in Rome and the Church in Corinth. In both cases, culture forced Christians to make decisions regarding these gray issues. In both cases, Christians found fellow believers on both sides of the issue. And in both cases, all of them thought they were right, and others were sinning. I would encourage you to pause and read Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

Over the next few weeks, we will work through these chapters to help us address gray issues with grace and humility. We will discover that we can disagree on some issues and still enjoy glorious unity. And we will discover that, in some cases, two Christians can come to two opposite conclusions, and both be right before God. Yet, unity is predicated on humility and love. So, in the next few weeks, I would encourage you to honestly examine your heart and repent of any pride that manifests itself through this conversation. Through this, may God grow our church in gracious biblical unity.



Making Biblical Decisions: Working to Grow and Help Others Grow in Christ, Part 5 – January 26, 2024

The final principle that helps us determine what edifies is that we must be concerned about the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 10:33 reveals that decisions that edify prioritize the Gospel so that others might be saved. While we will address this in greater detail in the future, I will make a few essential points now. First, edification cannot happen apart from the Gospel. The solution to a lack of satisfaction, pleasure, or sin is always the Gospel. Only the Gospel can change lives. Only the Gospel results in the fruit of the Spirit. Second, the power for edification cannot happen apart from the Gospel. Too many Christians live as though the power for life comes from politics, pleasure, finances, or relationships. However, Romans 1:16 reveals that God’s power comes only through the Gospel. As a result, third, the Christian must prioritize the Gospel. We must make decisions that proclaim the Gospel. This means that we must live distinctly from those around us. We work differently, demonstrating that our walk with God matters. We enter the political discussion differently, proclaiming that the Eternal Kingdom will bring peace. We engage in recreation and Sabbath rest in a way that declares that it is not the purpose of life but points to the eternal rest and joy found in Christ.

As we seek to make Biblical decisions, we must consider more than the sinfulness of the decision. While we may be free to make a decision as far as right and wrong are concerned, we are not free to make the decision as we consider what is best. While all things might be lawful, not all things are best. Do not sacrifice what is best on the altar of what is okay. The wise Christian seeking to make Biblical decisions will consider the pull and allure of the decision. If the result of the decision will grant control to anything other than God, the wise Christian will refrain. The wise Christian will also consider the decision’s impact on their own and others’ walk with God. We do not live for this world but for the Eternal Kingdom. So, we make decisions that will spur growth in our walk with Christ with eternity in mind. Considering these realities, we understand that just because we can do something does not mean we should do something.

Finally, as we consider this decision-making principle, we must recognize that godly individuals will apply the principle differently. Due to its control over me, I refrained from Mountain Dew for years. This, however, should not serve as a statement that every believer’s participation in that particular beverage is a sin. It is the height of arrogance to condemn something God has not. Further, I may consider something edifying, which another may not. These principles are not to be used as clubs of judgment against others but mirrors of examination for ourselves. As we seek to make Biblical decisions, let us ask, “Is this best?” To that end, we ask, “Will this control me?” If it will, do not do it. Further, we ask, “Will this help myself and others grow in our walk with Christ?” If the answer is no, then do not do it. Let us seek to consider excellence as we strive to make Biblical decisions.