Weaker Brother?

[Luke2427]

I find myself in agreement with Rick and webdog in regards to persuasion. Persuasion is not the same thing as forcing someone. I was recently accused by a very dishonest person on this board of trying to force my belief on others. Presenting one's side of an issue is not forcing someone to believe a thing. This is, after all, a debate forum. If a person is going to engage in vigorous debate they need to have thick skin.

As to the weaker brother - the admonition is to accept the one who is weak in faith (Rom. 14:1) and to not put an obstacle or stumbling block in their way (Rom. 14:13). So, we are able to extrapolate that the weaker brother is one who is weak in faith. Why are they weak in faith? There could be a number of contributing factors but the main reason is a lack of knowledge. How so? Let me use a relevant illustration.

In the two previous threads on drinking no one, absolutely no one, was able to prove that drinking is a sin. They cited social ills, health concerns, and harming the conscience of the weaker brother; but no one was able to prove it was sin. I contend that the reason why these individuals object to drinking, on other than biblical grounds, is because they lack knowledge in what the Bible says regarding the topic of Christian liberty. Their lack of knowledge leads to a lack of faith. Ergo they are weak in that area. They should not be weak in faith once they are properly instructed. Unfortunately that is not always the case. In that case it is proper for those who are strong in faith to willingly check their liberty in the presence of those who are weak in faith. It does not mean that those who are strong in faith must permanently check their liberty. Neither party is to regard with contempt the other party (Rom. 14:3), nor are are they to judge their conviction (Rom. 14:4).

Very well put.

__________

 

[allan brooks]

God is over all

Whether weak or strong, the point is God is God over all. We regard each other, that are in Christ, as brothers and equals. God our Father loves the weaker just as much as He does the stronger. Let no divisions be among you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Whether weak or strong, the point is God is God over all. We regard each other, that are in Christ, as brothers and equals. God our Father loves the weaker just as much as He does the stronger. Let no divisions be among you.

Very well put brother

 

[Luke2427]

Very well put brother

Who said we were not equals?

And in what way ARE we equals?

Are we all physical equals?

Are we all intellectual equals?

Are we all on the same level of sanctification?

What is so great about his remarks?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Who said we were not equals?

And in what way ARE we equals?

Are we all physical equals?

Are we all intellectual equals?

Are we all on the same level of sanctification?

What is so great about his remarks?

All your questions would be answered if you read & comprehend what the brother is saying. Maybe without the anger. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Luke2427]

All your questions would be answered if you read & comprehend what the brother is saying. Maybe without the anger. :smilewinkgrin:

I'm not angry, psycho. I'm just asking questions. Why don't you consider that you might not be one millionth the people reader you think you are?

I can honestly say I was not in the least angry when I typed that post.

Sheesh!!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm not angry, psycho. I'm just asking questions. Why don't you consider that you might not be one millionth the people reader you think you are?

I can honestly say I was not in the least angry when I typed that post.

Sheesh!!

But you are a jerk.:tongue3:

 

[Iconoclast]

Some folks use "debate" as an excuse to act like the south end of a mule.

:applause::thumbs::applause::thumbsup: Well said in light of recent postings

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:applause::thumbsup: Well said in light of recent postings

Luke will debate that comment you know. :laugh:

What ever you do, dont get him angry. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Iconoclast]

Luke will debate that comment you know. :laugh:

What ever you do, dont get him angry. :smilewinkgrin:

He would mostly agree with this.When a person posts without using scripture as a basis for the post......it does not offer much...
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.


26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.


5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He would mostly agree with this.When a person posts without using scripture as a basis for the post......it does not offer much...
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.


26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.


5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Perhaps the conversation isnt worth the effort....."Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6).

 

[Revmitchell]

Perhaps the conversation isnt worth the effort....."Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6).

Some of the wisest words ever post on the BB.

 

[Herald]

And how did you extrapolate 'forced' out of my comments? Is this a cleaver way to to manipulate me to send you Taylor Ham & Pectors? :laugh:

I was referring to someone else from a prior thread.

 

[DHK]

I contend that the reason why these individuals object to drinking, on other than biblical grounds, is because they lack knowledge in what the Bible says regarding the topic of Christian liberty. Their lack of knowledge leads to a lack of faith. Ergo they are weak in that area. They should not be weak in faith once they are properly instructed. Unfortunately that is not always the case. In that case it is proper for those who are strong in faith to willingly check their liberty in the presence of those who are weak in faith. It does not mean that those who are strong in faith must permanently check their liberty. Neither party is to regard with contempt the other party (Rom. 14:3), nor are are they to judge their conviction (Rom. 14:4).

We could easily turn the tables on this one. Those who believe that a Christian has the privilege of drinking is not very knowledgeable about what the Bible says about alcohol, and is therefore the weaker brother.
He doesn't know his Bible well.
He is unable to make Biblical application properly.
He is the one who is the stumbling block both to the saved and the unsaved alike.
Because of his testimony many are not coming to the Lord ("his religion is no better than mine").

It can easily be argued the other way. Those that drink are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and therefore the weaker brother.

 

[Herald]

We could easily turn the tables on this one. Those who believe that a Christian has the privilege of drinking is not very knowledgeable about what the Bible says about alcohol, and is therefore the weaker brother.
He doesn't know his Bible well.
He is unable to make Biblical application properly.
He is the one who is the stumbling block both to the saved and the unsaved alike.
Because of his testimony many are not coming to the Lord ("his religion is no better than mine").

It can easily be argued the other way. Those that drink are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and therefore the weaker brother.

You have yet to prove that exercising Christian liberty in the arena of drinking alcohol is a sin. Once you are able to do that the rest of your post will be a valid debate. Until then you are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I was referring to someone else from a prior thread.

OK...thanks for clearing that up.:thumbs:
:jesus: is Lord!

 

[Luke2427]

Perhaps the conversation isnt worth the effort....."Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6).

Who are the dogs, Steve?

Who are the hogs on this thread?

 

[Luke2427]

We could easily turn the tables on this one. Those who believe that a Christian has the privilege of drinking is not very knowledgeable about what the Bible says about alcohol, and is therefore the weaker brother.
He doesn't know his Bible well.

So that would be about every Christian for 1,800 years before the ignorance hiccup that was the temperance movement.

It would be ALL the founding fathers.

The pilgrims- well they must not have known their bibles those weaker brethren! They brought hundreds of gallons of beer with them on the Mayflower.

Most Baptists drank before the ignorance hiccup.

In fact the only ones who think it is a sin are the LEAST educated among us- of all time!!!

Pentecostals, IFB- these are the least educated Christians, by and large, in the world today.

It is no coincidence that these are the ones who champion a very new doctrine like teetotalism.

It can easily be argued the other way. Those that drink are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and therefore the weaker brother.

Yes, ANYTHING can be argued. Some idiot might argue that water is not wet. Anything CAN be argued.

But no intelligent person can argue that the Bible teaches teetotalism.

No INTELLIGENT argument can be made that drinking in moderation is a sin.

Sure, you can SAY whatever words you want to say.

You can SAY, "Rubber babby buggy bumpers- THERE!!! SEE!! Teetotalism is right!"

But it does not make what you say carry any legitimate weight.

So, yea, you could argue this point- but not intelligently.

 

[DHK]

So that would be about every Christian for 1,800 years before the ignorance hiccup that was the temperance movement.

This so-called fact I saw at Wikipedia. Is that where you gleaned it from--the most scholarly source on the internet? Is that the depth of your scholarship? It is probably why it is not documented either.
The other reason it is not documented is that it is a logical fallacy and cannot be proven.

It would be ALL the founding fathers.

Another logical fallacy. Have you read every word of every Church Father that ever lived--every document in every language--ALL of them. Then you wouldn't know that would you? It is a universal statement which you can't prove. We don't even have all of their writings in existence today.

The pilgrims- well they must not have known their bibles those weaker brethren! They brought hundreds of gallons of beer with them on the Mayflower.

Well pilgrim, I am not one of them.

Most Baptists drank before the ignorance hiccup.

Your definition of Baptist is skewed.
I can show you many "Baptists" that would never drink. They were our Baptist forefathers.

In fact the only ones who think it is a sin are the LEAST educated among us- of all time!!!

You are not educated when you refuse to look at the facts. Your very refusal to see the facts of what the Bible actually teaches demonstrates an attitude of ungodliness--one that says: "I will hang on to my vices no matter what the cost."

Pentecostals, IFB- these are the least educated Christians, by and large, in the world today.

I am not a Pentecostal and refuse to be associated with them. Are you a Roman Catholic because they believe in the Trinity and deity of Christ? Do you also believe in purgatory and the assumption of Mary?
Do we believe Luke simply because he demeans people, is arrogant and calls others names instead of engaging in meaningful debate? That is a point lost on you.

It is no coincidence that these are the ones who champion a very new doctrine like teetotalism.

I have noticed that you like to play games of semantics. For example when MacArthur takes a stand against drinking and preaches abstinence, you play a game of semantics and say but he doesn't believe in teetotalism, as if there is a real difference. It is all semantics.

Yes, ANYTHING can be argued. Some idiot might argue that water is not wet. Anything CAN be argued.

And the one that has the greater knowledge usually wins. In this case you seem to be ignorant because you only have knowledge of one side of the debate.

But no intelligent person can argue that the Bible teaches teetotalism.

The proper word is abstinence. And you just called MacArthur stupid. He is not intelligent according to you. There are many others in the same camp as he is, and just as scholarly if not more so. But again, it is you who refuses to listen to knowledge. So guess which camp you are in?

No INTELLIGENT argument can be made that drinking in moderation is a sin.

And that is why many have? The sin is refusing to listen to knowledge that will prove your arrogance wrong. It is arrogance that is sin.

Sure, you can SAY whatever words you want to say.

You can SAY, "Rubber babby buggy bumpers- THERE!!! SEE!! Teetotalism is right!"

I don't use the word "teetotalism," for a good reason, but mostly for your sake. I am not going to play your game of semantics. The Bible teaches abstinence, if you will listen to the Bible. Is there any chance of that? Doubtful. You already wrote off the Book of Proverbs. Any other books of Scripture you would like to disregard before we go on? Perhaps all 66?

But it does not make what you say carry any legitimate weight.

So, yea, you could argue this point- but not intelligently.

It appears I have knowledge and you don't. Who can argue it intelligently then?

 

[Yeshua1]

This so-called fact I saw at Wikipedia. Is that where you gleaned it from--the most scholarly source on the internet? Is that the depth of your scholarship? It is probably why it is not documented either.
The other reason it is not documented is that it is a logical fallacy and cannot be proven.

Another logical fallacy. Have you read every word of every Church Father that ever lived--every document in every language--ALL of them. Then you wouldn't know that would you? It is a universal statement which you can't prove. We don't even have all of their writings in existence today.

Well pilgrim, I am not one of them.

Your definition of Baptist is skewed.
I can show you many "Baptists" that would never drink. They were our Baptist forefathers.

You are not educated when you refuse to look at the facts. Your very refusal to see the facts of what the Bible actually teaches demonstrates an attitude of ungodliness--one that says: "I will hang on to my vices no matter what the cost."

I am not a Pentecostal and refuse to be associated with them. Are you a Roman Catholic because they believe in the Trinity and deity of Christ? Do you also believe in purgatory and the assumption of Mary?
Do we believe Luke simply because he demeans people, is arrogant and calls others names instead of engaging in meaningful debate? That is a point lost on you.

I have noticed that you like to play games of semantics. For example when MacArthur takes a stand against drinking and preaches abstinence, you play a game of semantics and say but he doesn't believe in teetotalism, as if there is a real difference. It is all semantics.

And the one that has the greater knowledge usually wins. In this case you seem to be ignorant because you only have knowledge of one side of the debate.

The proper word is abstinence. And you just called MacArthur stupid. He is not intelligent according to you. There are many others in the same camp as he is, and just as scholarly if not more so. But again, it is you who refuses to listen to knowledge. So guess which camp you are in?

And that is why many have? The sin is refusing to listen to knowledge that will prove your arrogance wrong. It is arrogance that is sin.

I don't use the word "teetotalism," for a good reason, but mostly for your sake. I am not going to play your game of semantics. The Bible teaches abstinence, if you will listen to the Bible. Is there any chance of that? Doubtful. You already wrote off the Book of Proverbs. Any other books of Scripture you would like to disregard before we go on? Perhaps all 66?

It appears I have knowledge and you don't. Who can argue it intelligently then?

actually, if we tale into account the entire Bible message, we are free to drink if we choose to do such, but there are valids reasons one may choose not to!