The primary focus of our discussion centers on the profound obligation we bear to avoid placing any obstacles in the path of our fellow believers that might compel them to compromise their conscience. We must recognize the gravity of violating one's conscience, as underscored in the context of our scriptural examination. We are reminded of our dual responsibility: to cultivate our own spiritual integrity while simultaneously safeguarding the spiritual welfare of our brethren. As we delve into the practical implications articulated in chapter fourteen, we will explore the nuanced dynamics that arise from differing convictions, particularly regarding dietary practices and observances, illustrating the necessity for sensitivity and mutual respect within the diverse body of Christ. This episode serves as a call for us to engage in self-reflection and to exercise discernment, ensuring that our actions contribute to the edification and unity of the body rather than its division.

This same emphasis is carried over into chapter fifteen but chapter fourteen is a practical chapter that places a burden on all of God's people to be aware of the serious implications of violating our conscience. The potential for condemnation based on differing convictions is critically examined, asserting that one must act with love and care, ensuring that their freedoms do not inadvertently lead others into spiritual peril. Ultimately, the conversation calls for a balance between personal liberty and responsibility for other saints, highlighting the importance of discerning when to exercise one's rights.

Takeaways:

• The emphasis on not placing a stumbling block before others highlights our responsibility toward others in spiritual matters.
• Maintaining one’s conscience is crucial, yet we must also ensure we do not lead others astray.
• A proper understanding of conscience involves recognizing that our actions can affect the faith of others.
• In matters of personal conviction, we must prioritize the welfare of our brothers and sisters over our liberties.

Christianity is very diverse, but all denominations share a common source that by its nature has created problems for which there is no biblical antidote.

Tim Glover provides an alternative.

Join him each Wednesday at 10am to share his studies with you under the law.

But when they impose those on others believing that it was enforced, that was a different situation, that altogether different.

And so they had observed certain days and they were disposed then to condemn the Gentile Christians for not doing the same thing they were doing.

They wouldn't eat meats that the law would think to be unclean, for instance, some then would only eat herbs.

And they might think that, well, if we ate meat, we might be dedicated.

It might be dedicated to an idol and thereby we might be wrong by eating meat.

So they were fearful of doing something in violation of the law.

The Gentile Christian would consider their conduct as being maybe foolish.

You know, it would go both ways.

Either the Gentile would just run roughshod over the conscience of the Jew and place one in a situation where they might violate their conscience.

Or it could be the other way, where a Gentile who was.

Who grew up going to the idol's temple and would never eat meat at the shambles because they were afraid that if they ate the meat there or bought the meat from the market, it might have been previously dedicated to an idol and thereby they would be defiled in doing that.

So either way, there were certain opinions and viewpoints based upon one's background, religious background, that might influence their feelings about and their decisions about which way they would go.

There's some concerns about not doing anything to violate that conscience.

If they think it's right or wrong, then we need not put a stumbling block in their way.

That's a very critical thing we're going to be emphasizing in this chapter.

Some people have the attitude, and they may say, well, I don't care what you think.

I know it's not wrong and I intend to do it because I like it.

Well, that not only suggests a very selfish attitude, but it also suggests a very uncaring attitude about the conscience of another brother or sister.

It's critical that we do nothing to cause one to violate their conscience and thereby condemn themselves.

This chapter involves in that somewhat, as does First Corinthians 10.

So all these matters were grounds for a lot of criticisms and strife.

You know, I suppose some of the Gentile converts, they thought a lot of this was just foolishness and for Jew to be concerned about certain days and all.

And again, a Jew might think the same way about some of Their feelings in verses one through four.

Now let's just start the reading.

Let him that is weak in faith receive you not for decisions of scruples.

One man hath faith to eat all things, but he that is weak eats herbs.

Now, let's be clear early on as we read this that the weakness in faith is about doubts as to the rightness or the wrongness of eating meat.

It doesn't have anything to do with the actual truth that is in Christ.

If it was, then Paul could just set this record straight and everybody just adhere to what the truth is and it would fix everything.

But of course, there's the truth and then there's the conscience.

That is the thought of one's view of that truth that does have to be taken into consideration.

So it's very critical that we understand the difference.

The weak in faith doesn't have anything to do with.

Well, someone just doesn't know the Bible well, or he's a young young in the faith.

He's just.

It has to do with his doubts about what the truth is.

Perhaps.

Many Jewish Christians held the law of Moses was still in force, and yet they had heard Paul and other apostles preach about that.

They could not always be sure that the meat bought in the market was from an animal that had been declared unclean or not, or that may be an animal that had been dedicated to an idol.

And so instead they just ate herbs.

Others had faith to eat all kinds of meat.

So there's differences.

There's those who are sticklers for the law that would brand the others as sinners and the others think all that's foolishness and eat it in front of them.

Or maybe encourage them to eat something at their dinner table, knowing that they may be compelled or influenced to do it, all the while feeling guilty and condemning themselves for being involved.

Neither would be willing to give the other full fellowship.

Perhaps someone would question the other scruples or their lack of faith or lack of understanding or lack of scruples.

And so long as one's faith in Christ was strong and unwavering, no one should condemn him for what he eats or doesn't eat.

And no one should try to force others to comply with their notions and their opinions about eating or not eating.

So it's about no servant has a right to condemn another man's servant.

Of course, so it is with our Lord and his servants and our brothers and sisters.

For one to condemn a Lord's servant doesn't change the Lord's attitude toward him.

He's able to make him stand so long as his opinions don't interfere with his faith and his obedience.

Now keep in mind we're talking about matters of opinion, matters about which God does not clearly define.

Whether it's right or wrong really doesn't make any difference.

It's still their conscience.

This idea of following your heart and following your conscience.

And of course we should be true to our conscience and never violate our conscience.

But that has nothing to do with it being the right guide.

That's not the guide.

The revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ is the guide.

And as we put our trust in it and study it, we will always be developing and growing and therefore changing and modifying some of our views.

That's just to be expected.

But don't think that just because we shouldn't violate our conscience that our conscience is the proper guide and we just follow our heart.

We follow the Lord, we follow the Word, we follow the revelation that has been given to us.

But it's just that in that process of following the Word and following our Lord, we'll have views that will change.

That's not a bad thing.

We continue to grow, search the Scriptures and study, and we will develop some different opinions and ideas along the way.

So verse 5 says, One man esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike.

Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.

Now that's a critical statement.

Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.

The weak in faith were those who weren't fully assured.

And therefore when it was, when they were influenced to do something other than what they'd always done, they were uneasy and they might be influenced to go ahead and do it and eat it.

For example, eat some meat.

When all along their conscience is telling them this isn't right.

Again, doesn't have anything to do with whether it's right or wrong.

It's what their conscience tells them.

You see, it's very critical that we not violate our conscience to the point where it doesn't work for us.

It's a God given barometer.

It's a God given thing that we need to take seriously.

But it's not necessarily a guide to truth.

Just keep that in mind.

There is a huge difference.

Many Jewish Christians held that the law was binding and they demanded that the Gentiles keep the law just as they did.

We see that from Acts 15 and a host of other passages that indicate that there were some judaizing teachers who were trying to compel Gentiles to follow their customs.

And you'll remember that the decree of the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem seemed to have had no effect on them.

As soon as the letters were sent out trying to correct this problem, it didn't really solve the problem.

There were always those who were trying to bind it on the Christians.

And so in Paul's discussion of these matters, matters of choice, that's not wrong if one wanted to be so involved.

But it's not a matter of law.

These opinions, these things were not to be binding upon others.

And so the Lord has set apart certain things in his word that didn't fit this category.

My friends, it's not that we should just take this Romans 14, and apply it to every topic and situation that arises and says, well, every man has a right to his own opinion.

Well, if you're talking about liberties as an American citizen, maybe so.

But when you're talking about serving the Lord, no, there are certain things the Lord was very strict about and it didn't have.

Whether your conscience is dead on or not, or whether you're right or we have a right opinion or not makes no difference.

But these are matters of conscience, matters about which men and women have a choice.

But the point is, let each man be fully assured in his own mind as to whether he will or he will not.

We have that choice.

If they're matters of liberty, if their matters where God has revealed, then we have no choice concerning this.

The Lord has bound no one, and concerning such matters, no one should seek to bind his notions on others.

It's evident here that we have Jews among God's people who were observing days.

Galatians, chapter 4, verse 10 says, you observe days, months, seasons, years.

I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.

Again, they were binding elements of the old law that was no longer in force.

But they didn't make that distinction.

And so Paul would say in Colossians 2 at another letter, but regarding the same issue, let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon, or a Sabbath day.

Why?

Well, those were matters of scruples and opinions about which man has a choice.

And we can't dictate what God has not revealed.

And so those are the issues involved in this chapter.

Then verse seven, he says, for none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself.

For whether we live or we live unto the Lord, or whether we die, we die unto the Lord.

Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again that he might be lord of both the dead and the living.

A lot of times this point, verse 7 is generally missed by assuming that Paul was talking about our relations with one another, but really he's not.

It's true we can't cut ourselves off from all relations with our fellow men, but that's not the point Paul is making.

He's speaking of our relationship to the Lord.

The connection shows very clearly from verse eight.

Well, verse eight explains verse seven.

None of us lives to himself, for whether we live, we live unto the Lord.

See, no one lives to himself but to the Lord, for he is the Lord's servant.

So Paul was speaking of Christians here.

That's the context, not our fellow man.

Christian can't cut himself off from any connection with the Lord and live with his own life as he pleases.

See, that's his point.

Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.

And he lived and died that he might be lord of both the dead and the living.

And so far as the Greek is concerned, we might as well have the word.

For in verses 7 and 8 as we do to or unto and say, no one lives for himself and no one dies for himself.

The point is the same.

We are the Lord's, and therefore we are the Lord's servant.

Now verse 10 says, but thou, why dost thou judge thy brother?

Or again, why do you set it naught your brother?

For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.

For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord to me, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Let us not therefore judge one another any more.

But judge ye rather this that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way or as an occasion of following.

So we return back to the thought we introduced earlier.

But now keep in mind that this word judge.

Many people really, really need to listen carefully on this one.

I would say that a vast majority of people abuse and misuse.

This idea of judging all the time.

To judge here has to do with condemning others.

Those who believed that they should observe the days required in the law and refused to eat meats that are prohibited by the law, they would condemn as sinners to anybody that didn't do like they did.

And those who ate meat and refused to observe certain days would count as foolish.

Those people who didn't eat the meat, or those who didn't observe the days, or who did observe the days.

It was A bad situation.

And so there were some serious sentiments and consequences, hard feelings and a lack of fellowship.

And so Paul's rebuke is necessary here.

God is the judge, and he's going to make the final judgment of all things when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

And so whether we do it voluntarily now, we will definitely bow the knee and we will confess judgment.

Jesus Christ, we're going to do that.

Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

And everyone shall give account of himself, not of one another.

And then none of us shall judge another.

But let's not do that.

Let's not wait that long.

But his point is don't judge one another.

That is, don't condemn one another.

It seems to me that that that's this.

That's the context, friends.

Now, I say that people misunderstand this passage and misuse it.

You might ask, well, what are you talking about?

Or how would that be a misuse?

Well, it is.

In this way, there are two extremes.

On the one hand, there are those who are just so hypercritical and condemning of anybody that doesn't walk just like they walk and talk, what have the same customs and choices and liberties, and don't exercise those same liberties as they do.

On the other hand, there's the other extreme that thinks that we shouldn't make any judgment at all.

We shouldn't make any judgment about anybody.

I want to read you some scriptures and I want to ask you some questions to follow that and see if that's a fair conclusion.

In Matthew 7:15, Jesus talks about being aware of false prophets.

Well, how can we judge them to be false prophets if we're not able to judge?

We're supposed to judge.

If a man.

How can a man judge another to be an evil worker?

If we're not to obey the.

If we're, you know, not to obey the command to beware of evil workers, how can we do that if.

Again, how can we do that if we're not to judge?

My point is that we need to be making judgments about people and about maybe their views or their teaching or their lifestyle.

There's nothing wrong with that, friends.

The wrong is when we play God and we condemn them.

In Romans 16, Paul talks about those who cause divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the teaching that you've received.

He says, mark them and have no fellowship with them.

Well, how are you going to do that if you can't judge which men belong to that class?

I mean, there's just no way.

How can you individually withdraw from a brother that's a disordered brother, if you can't make the judgment about whether he's disorderly, we must be very strict in judging our own actions and their possible results on others and causing stumbling and occasions of stumbling.

And so Paul says here in chapter 14, Judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way or an occasion of stumbling.

And so in this particular setting, if a man's eating meat as food led his brother to think that he was eating in honor of an idol, and was thereby led to eat meat in honor of an idol, his eating becomes a stumbling block over which his brother fell.

And so a man would never insist on exercising his own rights and his own liberties if in any way it harm another brother or sister.

And so in verse 14, Paul says, I know and am persuaded in the Lord that nothing is unclean of itself.

And Paul is saying, let me emphasize that differently.

Paul says, I know and am persuaded in the Lord that nothing is unclean of itself, save to him that accounts anything to be unclean.

To him it is unclean.

I know that there's nothing unclean in and of itself.

But to that brother who in good conscience thinks that it's unclean, to him it is unclean.

So whether it is or isn't really doesn't make a difference.

If he thinks it is, then it is.

And so Paul is very emphatic about this.

He says that the distinction between the law makes between clean and unclean animals is no longer in force.

The Gentiles were right and the Jews were strong in this matter of eating meats.

On this point, it took a very special revelation to Peter to convince him that those legal distinctions were no longer in force.

In Acts, chapter 10, he received the vision.

Rise, Peter, kill and eat.

And no, not so, Lord.

Nothing's unclean ever entered my mouth, he said, you see?

And yet if a man thought the Lord prohibited a certain animal for food, then he shouldn't use it, he shouldn't eat it.

To him it is unclean.

A man should not go against his conscience, is my point.

So no thoughtful Christian will try to cause anyone to go against his convictions, however foolish he may think they are.

Teach him what's right.

You can discuss it and talk about it and read the text, but don't try to induce him to do what he thinks is wrong.

When you do that, you'll destroy his conscience.

You'll make it ineffective.

Verse 15 and 16, Paul says, for if because of meat thy brother is grieved, Thou walkest no longer in love.

Destroy not with your meat, him for whom Christ died.

Let not then your good be evil spoken of.

Verse 14 is sort of a parenthetical, but verse 15 connects directly to verse 13.

So if you read these two verses, leaving out 14, you'll see the connection.

The connection shows clearly that the warning against doing anything whereby a brother is grieved means more than simply warning against doing anything to hurt his feelings.

It has nothing to do with that.

The next sentence says, destroy not with your meat, him for whom Christ died.

That is, don't destroy him as a Christian.

You don't destroy a Christian by violating his prejudice and his notions.

We're not talking about catering to everybody's cantankerous views.

It says he's grieved.

And this, you see, it's not a matter of him being upset because no one does what he wants them to do or they don't go along with his decisions.

But he's brought to a grief.

No one should, by eating meat, bring a brother or sister to grief and destroy him as a brother, he should do this instead.

If eating meat led a brother to eat it in honor of an idol, and that's what he has in his mind as he eats under the impression that you were eating in honor of an idol, then by all means don't.

Don't prevent that.

If he thinks it's wrong and you know it's right, and Paul is saying, I know that there's nothing wrong, but if the other thinks it is, then to him it is unclean.

See, a man's freedom in Christ should not be so used to lead a brother or sister into sin and thereby destroy the one for whom Christ died.

That's his point.

Such conduct would make one an enemy of both his brother and the lord.

So verse 17 and 18, Paul says, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Spirit Spirit.

For he that herein serves Christ is well, pleasing to God and approved of men.

The kingdom of God doesn't consist in distinctions about meats and drinks.

No one should conclude that freedom from the law in which such distinctions were made would give him the right to eat and drink whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences.

But righteousness has to do primarily with the treatment of our fellow man and our brother.

It's doing right by other people.

So you do not treat your fellow Christian right.

If in the exercise of your own freedoms, your own liberties, you lead him to do what violates his conscience, and that's leading to doing something wrong.

Peace in this connection refers to peace among God's people.

Where there is a fellowship of saints, where all members are treating one another right and we are at peace among ourselves, then there's joy in the Holy Spirit.

And the one who promotes such conditions is well pleasing to God and is approved by all men.

All right thinking people anyway.

So he says in verse 19.

So then let us follow after things that make for peace and and things whereby we may edify one another, build each other up, overthrow not for food's sake, the work of God.

All things indeed are clean.

Howbeit it is evil for that man who eats with offence.

It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, nor to do anything whereby the brother stumbles.

So no saint, no Christian, should push his opinions and his own personal rights and freedoms to disturb another soul, another brother or sister.

You know, peace is so delightful and so sought after.

It should be.

And it's so helpful that no thoughtful child of God would needlessly cause any kind of strife.

But we should be giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Ephesians 4, verse 3.

And so that's necessary if we're going to edify one another, to build each other up, to build up in knowledge and faith and right living.

But I tell you, confusion does not edify anyone.

It builds up nothing.

It causes uneasiness and strife and doubts.

But if the truth of God is at stake, the good soldier of Jesus will fight the good fight.

If God's revelation has been it's clearly revealed, then stand for that truth and right or wrong, as far as the conscience is concerned, this passage is talking about matters of liberty, friends and I understand that there would.

For anybody who thinks that something is wrong, it's wrong and they think the Bible supports it.

They're going to differ over whether it's a matter of liberty or not.

I understand that, but this is a principle that's saying make a distinction and know that a distinction exists because a child of God is a work of God and so overthrow not for meat's sake, the work of God.

That'll apply to any matter of personal rights.

In overthrowing the faith of a child of God, we destroy the work of God.

And that's a serious situation.

The statement that all things are clean.

Here I think he's applying to meats.

All things are clean.

That's the truth of the matter.

The law declared certain animals unclean.

That law, though, was no longer binding legally.

No Animal was now unclean, but it is evil to the man who eats with offense.

And so this has no reference to merely hurting feelings of others.

Instead, eating with offense has to do with eating certain meat under circumstances that would cause another person, a weak person, to eat against his convictions.

So a Christian would stumble or sin when he violates his own conscience, his own convictions, and it's evil for anyone else to have led that person to go against his convictions, no matter how innocent the act itself may be.

So we're talking about influences by the fellowship of other fellow Christians that might cause someone who is weak in faith to go against what they believe is right or wrong to violate their conscience.

Verse 22 says, the faith thou have have to thyself before God.

Now he's talking to the brother who is tempted to put a stumbling block.

In other words, have your faith to yourself before God.

And he's not saying that we're not charged to keep our faith in Christ secret or keep it ourselves.

In fact, we're told to spread the gospel abroad.

That's clearly taught.

But rather the Christian who has, you know, he's been well taught.

He.

He knows that the legal distinctions between clean and unclean are done away, and that he would therefore likely believe that he could eat any meat that he chose to eat.

All right, that's a liberty, but don't use that liberty your faith.

One man has faith to eat all things.

Verse 2 says, See, don't have that faith.

And the whole chapter shows that such faith must not be exercised under circumstances that might lead others to sin against their conviction.

So he might eat the meat in his own home in the presence of God.

I like what Bloomfield says in his comments.

Keep this persuasion to yourself and your God.

Use it when you have no other witness.

In other words, you know, don't flaunt these things if it could cause or make it known publicly, or do it before others.

If you think there's the possibility that it might cause others to be.

To cause them to stumble.

And by offend here, we're not talking about, you know, making them think less of you, though that might be another choice with reference to wisdom.

But we're causing someone to stumble is the meaning of the word offend.

You know, a lot of people say, well, you offended me.

And it has no meaning whatsoever that this Greek word has in the text here.

Offend technically means in the Greek to cause another to stumble.

And so we don't want to put anything before another to cause them cause a stumbling block.

Verse 22 says, but he that doubts is condemned if he eats because he eats not of faith.

And whatever is not of faith is sin.

You know, believing a thing is right doesn't make it right.

But doing a wrong thing, believing it's right, shows honesty of purpose.

Saul of Tarsus thought he was doing what was right when he persecuted Christians, and he thought he was dead on in what he believed was right.

And yet that commendation, or it's commendable to do thing in good conscience, yet he was doing wrong.

He was a sinner, but an honest sinner is my point.

And the Jew who believed it wrong to eat certain meat and yet ate the meat rather than to be called odd or foolish, they sinned against God themselves.

They sinned against themselves and God, let's put it that way.

If a man even has a doubt about a rightfulness of a thing, then he shouldn't engage in it.

He's condemned if he does a doubtful thing.

And so a man can't go against his idea of right without great injury to his character.

He eateth not of faith.

It simply means that he did not fully believe that such eating was right and that that principle holds true concerning any practice about which we have doubts.

And that's his point when he says, whatever is not of faith is sin.

See, this does not refer to faith in Christ, or faith in the Gospel, or faith in the righteousness of what we do.

If a Christian does a thing without being fully persuaded in his own mind that it is right, then he sins.

A man may sin believing he's doing right, but he sins in doing anything.

If he doubts that it's right, you see the point.

And so if he doubts, the act is not of faith, and if it's not of faith, it's sin.

This is the meaning in the context of the text.

Well, I thank you for listening.

Our time is up and I pray you've gotten something out of this.

And if you have any suggestions or ideas or anything that you think I might need to consider, you're always welcome to contact me.

Well, thank you so much for your kind attention to these things.

I hope you have a good day and a pleasant week.