(1Co 10:25-26 ESV) 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.”
Therefore, meat is fine to eat, and we are under no obligation to ask whether it was sacrificed to an idol. Don’t ask. Enjoy.
Paul quotes from Psalm 24, and as is often the case, he is referring to the broader context –
(Psa 24:1-6 ESV) The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, 2 for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers. 3 Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place? 4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully. 5 He will receive blessing from the LORD and righteousness from the God of his salvation. 6 Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob. Selah
Not only does the psalmist declare the products of the earth “the Lord’s,” he does so in the context of those who go up to worship God at his Temple (the “hill of the Lord”). God accepts the worship of those with a “pure heart.” Therefore, so that you can eat with a clean conscience, don’t ask.
(1Co 10:27-28 ESV) 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience–
The same rule applies when a pagan invites you to dinner. Don’t ask. Eat in good conscience. But if you are told that the meat was sacrificed to an idol, you must refuse so that the pagan doesn’t perceive you as participating in the worship of an idol.
(1Co 10:29-30 ESV) 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
It’s a matter of the conscience of the pagan. Not that he feels guilty, but that he perceives a Christian as worshiping a pagan god.
Paul then seems to contradict himself by declaring that his liberty should not be taken due to someone else’s conscience! I thought that Paul just taught that the Christian should not eat food known to be dedicated to an idol because of the conscience of someone else!
Paul seems to be saying that if a reader takes offense at eating meat without determining its origin — a position that a “weak” Greek or a Jewish Christian might take — Paul’s conduct cannot be so easily denounced. Paul eats with thankfulness the product of God’s good earth. He gives thanks to God. He is not worshiping an idol and does not appear to be worshiping an idol. Therefore, some brothers just need to find something else to get upset over.
In short, it’s not about whether someone disagree or takes offense. It’s whether the conduct in fact constitutes idol worship or might appear that way to the pagan host — a neighbor whom we love so much that we want him to learn about God and not be fooled into continuing to worship an idol.
(1Co 10:31-33 ESV) 31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
The question then is one of bringing glory to God. “Offense,” in this context, means to tempt into sin by peer pressure, not that someone might disagree with your decision and claim to be upset by it. We can’t control what others take offense over. But we can be careful to only act to the glory of God.
We should not tempt church members to sin against their consciences, as Paul taught back in chapter 8, and we should not tempt pagans to see our enjoying of Christian liberty as paganism. We must never be seen as idol worshipers. It is forbidden to the Christian.
Paul’s goal in pleasing “everyone in everything I do” is not to please the unreasonable scruples of condemning, naysaying church members, but to save the lost. He is speaking of being all things to all men to save them. He is a missionary, and he surrenders his liberty to convert the lost — not to please the local legalists in the church.
Jay,
I agree with your reply to Dennis. But, there are other times when you seem to not believe this. I left a comment, (or asked questions) on another post that you never answered. So, hopefully you can find time to answer it here. Your latest post at Wineskins and some of the comments seem to assume that Restoration Christians are the only ones. I submit that getting to the place where we fully accept others with our faith heritage and call that biblical unity would be sad indeed. Now my question.
“With utmost respect I’m trying desperately to understand what you actually believe regarding baptism. I’m sure this sounds like an odd thing to question since you have written so much on it, but it’s as clear as mud to me thus far. I think the problem is you’ve painted yourself into a corner. I’ll use two examples to illustrate what I understand you to believe.
A sinner named Joe hears the good news about Jesus. He repents and believes but is NOT taught about baptism, or not taught about “proper baptism” (whatever that is..), but he is saved. He is saved because salvation is by grace though faith and he has, based on what he knows, put his trust in Jesus.
A sinner named John hears the good news about Jesus. He repents and believes and IS taught about baptism, even “proper baptism” (whatever that is..). John wants to be baptized but can’t until Wednesday. John remains lost because he has not been immersed. His faith is null and void until he is immersed and then he is saved.
What did I miss?
I know Ray Downen’s position well. I know Al Maxey’s position well. It seems to me that you are trying to be somewhere in the middle and that place doesn’t exist.”
Royce
Jay, to describe another person’s baptism as “flawed” and “imperfect” while admitting that it is “entirely effective” seems to be splitting hairs for an unknown reason. That is, you seem to want to keep alive some objection to the baptisms of others, even though the details you feel are incorrect does not keep those baptisms from being effective. If God accepts these baptisms, as you and I seem to agree that He does, what is the edifying purpose of continuing to describe them as “imperfect”? After all, does not that term describe our every act of obedience? It seems to me that there should be some real value to continuing to hold out such objections, because there is clearly a real risk of alienating believers whose baptisms are acceptable to God. It appears to me that the value of the continuing objection should tangibly outweigh the harm it can do to Christian unity.
All the discussions about “HOW” and “WHEN” we are saved are important, vitally so. To uphold an understanding of scripture is never wrong. Yet to fail to extend to others the grace that we have experienced is more than problematic; it is likely a sign of the pharisee and perhaps even sinful. We would do well to spend more time focusing on “WHY” we are saved, as Jay has pointed out well.
I taught a large adult Bible class today, asking “WHY” and received answers of “HOW”. I then led the discussion to “WHY” (Eph. 3) among others (1Jn 3:8; 1Pt 2:21, 3:9; 2Tm.1:9-10; 2Cr 5:1-5).
As a restorative fellowship we have spent the better part of two centuries discovering, debating, discussing the “HOW” of church and worship. The thought often resulted in thinking that “if we got the doctrine right, everything would be okay — God would be pleased and in some way, He would HAVE to accept us. While submission, dedication, etc.were discussed, the focus was placed on doctrine. It is well past time we began to focus on the “WHY” .
This is easily seen in John 4:24 “worship in spirit and truth.” The truth part I think we have understood pretty well (far from “perfect”) but we have spent precious little time on what it means to worship in spirit. Perhaps the better part of two centuries of discovering and discussing (with fewer debates) would be well spent. We are experiencing the reaction to a legalistic approach to scripture and it should not be unexpected (I know, a double negative) that an over reaction would result. If we do have to “quarrel” a bit, let us recognize that it is a lover’s quarrel, and that love will keep fellowship and mutual respect alive and well in the power of the Spirit.
Perhaps then the pendulum could stop swinging so violently between legalistic and libertine approaches to scripture. I will not live to see it, but I can see the path moving in the right direction, pitfalls and potholes notwithstanding. For that I give God the thanks, that many of His people desire to be in right spiritual and truthful relationship with Him.
I see that Jay is fully justified and anyone else would be also in declaring that some baptisms fail. I can easily see that where men and women have been persuaded to be baptized for the wrong motives.
1. Being baptized to join the church, is not a Biblical perspective, and many have been baptized to join without a commitment to Christ.
2. Being baptized because you were taught by an organization (church) that baptism is the ticket to avoiding being condemned to hell, the goal avoiding hell, not faith or belief in Jesus.
3. Being baptized just because of peer pressure from other individuals. to become united with them rather than being scorned.
You realize that the list could continue, but I can assure you that in my lifetime I have seen these concepts in action.
Now, let’s bring this down to reality, anyone who doubts their commitment to Christ was correct when they were baptized or anyone who had not been taught or learned about baptism who learns the message in scriptures of the many applications of baptism, including Paul’s narrative in Romans who would refuse to follow the examples and instructions may be actually displaying a lack of faith and belief in The Lord’s instructions. What would you consider that individuals destiny to be? Should they be warned of foreseeable danger by their friends?
Grace and Larry,
I have not ever characterized someone’s baptism as a “fail.” PLEASE stop saying otherwise.
I just conducted a computer search of the blog database to be sure.
Jay, Are you saying this isn’t what you said?: “Those with a genuine, penitent faith in Jesus (hereafter, simply “faith”) who fail to be baptized correctly due to being wrongly instructed as new converts.”
Jay you said, “fail to be baptized correctly”
What did you mean saying that those with genuine, penitent faith in Jesus failed to be baptized correctly?
Jay,
I did not test to see whether you had or had not mentioned about a failed baptism, I was responding to Grace’s comment. I did include you in my response to to attempt to verify that if she thought that you did it was really not an issue, that could declare anyone right or wrong. The only application of this fail as I have defined it would be within the individual who was baptized conscience.. What do they believe was their motive.
It looks like Grace should identify the location of the referenced statement.
You got it.
/2014/07/baptism-is-baptism-a-work/#comments