And as such, it matters very little that opposition against the principle of the tithe is brought with the desire for biblical fidelity, for it is to them foundational and irrefutable. Therefore, for those who seek to establish a biblical pattern of Christian Giving with their own lives that is not necessarily opposed to tithing (that is, not opposed to tithing for the sake of being opposed to tithing without Scriptural warrant) but is desirous to live lives that accord with God’s Word in all matters of life including giving, the battle is for them an uphill one. For it is not (in many cases) a matter of “Let us search the Scriptures for understanding,” but it is rather a matter of “Why do you break the traditions of the elders?” And as such, one might quote and discern Scripture till he blue is in the face, and yet he will gain little ground in the battle for common understanding.

Therefore, one may wonder whether it is profitable to question the present understanding of Christian Giving at all granting that it will be undoubtedly met with such fierce opposition. For what ground can be gained against a doctrine that is so entrenched in the minds and hearts of the church that it is defended with such fervor? And, if there is ground and progress to be had, what edification, if any, is there that would be profitable enough to justify rifting the status quo and the relative peace on the matter?

For the answers to these questions and others, it would be helpful first to understand the purpose behind Christian Giving and secondly to understand the manner prescribed in Scripture for its fulfillment. For I am convinced that latter bears a great weight upon the former, and by understanding the reason for our giving as Christians we will better understand why certain means and methods should be accepted and why others should be rejected.

The Purpose behind Christian Giving
On the purpose behind Christian Giving, perhaps the best discourse in Holy Scripture is given by the apostle Paul to the Corinthian church. In his second letter to the church, he admonishes them to give, not for the sake of paying the wages of the apostles or for paying the electric bill of the local synagogue, but it was for the sake of supplying the basic needs of their brothers and sisters in Christ. We know this is the heart of the apostle, for in an earlier discourse he declares that it is the right of the apostle and the laborer of God to be compensated for his spiritual work, and yet for their sakes and for their understanding, the apostle relinquished his rights and his due compensation so that he might not lay any obstacle in the way of the Gospel (cf. 1Cor. 9:8-18).

However, though the apostle relinquishes what is due to him for his faithful service, he by no means exempts the church from giving. Quite the contrary, at the beginning of his discourse in his second letter to them, he gives to them an unsurpassable model of giving in the Macedonians. There he writes:

We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints (2Cor. 8:1-4).

Now to understand the model of giving given by the apostle to the Corinthian church, we must understand the context in which it was done. First, we must understand who the beneficiary of the Macedonian giving was. The apostle Paul, as is recounted in the book of Acts, was busy collecting aide for the saints in Jerusalem who had suffered great hardship by virtue of being in Jerusalem. Therefore, the saints in Macedonia gave, not for the express benefit of their local congregations, but for the benefit of their brothers and sisters who lived in another province. To put it another way, they did not see their material duty as bound to their brothers who lived among them, but they saw that it was their duty to aid the church universal. All who were in Christ were their brothers (despite their nationality), and they earnestly sought to aid their brothers in any way that they could.

Secondly, we must understand the extent of the Macedonian giving. The apostle Paul recounts to the Corinthian church that the Macedonians not only gave according to their means (meaning that they were giving whatever they could without jeopardizing their own livelihood), but they gave beyond their means. Now, we are not given the manner by which the Macedonians altered their lives so that they could give beyond their means for the sake of their foreign brethren, but we do know this–that they willingly subjected themselves to “a severe test of affliction” and to “extreme poverty.” The Macedonians, bound only by their love for their fellow saints, gave and gave to the point that they had to beg the apostle Paul to take more from them.

Thirdly, we must understand the result of their giving. Apart from the obvious benefit to the impoverished saints in Jerusalem, the Macedonians themselves received a more blessed gift, namely grace. This grace given to them by God (cf. v. 8:1) did indeed result in the exhausting of their material wealth and comfort, but much more than that it resulted in their “extreme joy” (cf. v. 8:2). From their extreme poverty burgeoned a “wealth of generosity” so that they who lacked wealth “abounded in joy.” No, they did not retain their Xboxes or their Cable TV or their meals at Outback Steakhouse, but, in return for their great sacrifice, God was pleased to give them a joy that surpasses all material and fleshly pleasure. The result of their sacrifice is nothing short of ironic to the fleshly minded, but its result in reality is nothing short of Kingdom of God (cf. Mark 12:29-34).

Enter the Tithe
When placed against the instructional example of the Macedonians, the tithe seems nonsensical. For the Macedonians did not sit back with their W-2s and calculators and calculate the ten percent which they thought they owed, but they not only gave one hundred percent of what they were able to give, but (to use bad mathematics) they gave one hundred and ten percent. The Macedonians did not see themselves as bound to an statute of giving given to the Israelites under the Old Covenant (which after multiple tithes given at different intervals came closer to twenty-three percent of their income), but they saw themselves as bound to the law of Christ. And what was this law but that they should love their Lord with all their soul and that they love their neighbor as themselves? And since they did indeed love the saints in Jerusalem as themselves (and, arguably, more than themselves), they did what the rich young ruler could not do, namely sell all of his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor (cf. Mt. 19:16-30). By living thus, the Macedonians were assured that God had pulled them through the gates of Heaven–a feat which is much more difficult than pulling a camel through the eye of a needle.

The Yoke and the Ease of the Tithe
Despite this clear example given by the apostle Paul in the Macedonians and despite the absolute lack of command given to the church to practice tithing, we in the church today are still bound to this statute given to national Israel under the Old Covenant. And though we forego the restrictions of the Old Covenant on the foods that we eat and the commandments given concerning animal sacrifices, we yet cling to this command given to those who did not eat pork and who slaughtered animals day after day and night after night. Why is this? Whether it be tradition, tangibility, lack of understanding, or the perpetuity of poor teaching, the fact remains that we who are in Christ are clearly called to a different standard than that which was given to national Israel. And though it can be certainly argued that the Israelites were instructed as we are to aid the poor and the unfortunate, the fact remains that the tithe is not the only relic that remains to the church from the Old Covenant with the House of Israel.

Some in the church have recognized this from Scripture, and yet they continue to teach tithing propagating it as a “good starting place.” But is it indeed a good starting place? For what has the law to do with the recipients of the Gospel? Is the slaughter of lambs a good starting place for the slaughter of the Son of God? Are the chains of clean animals a good starting place for the freedom afforded in Christ? Is the rebuilding of the temple of a good starting place for coming to Christ? By no means! For what business have we running to shadows when we have already been granted the Reality? By trading the Law of Christ in loving our brothers for the law of the tithe, are we any better off?

Furthermore, the institution of the tithe has been to some in the church an unnecessary burden and to others an escape from duty. For the apostle writes concerning the end for which we are to give, saying:

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack” (2Cor. 8:13-15).

In other words, our giving is to be so that there is an equilibrium among the saints. For God has ordained that while some have lack, others will have an abundance so that they might be as their Father in Heaven by giving generously to the aide of those who have lack. Likewise, when the tables turn, those who were in need who then receive wealth can give it in turn to others who have need. By living thus, we demonstrate to the world that we love one another and thus declare the Gospel of our Lord to them by our good deeds.

The institution of the tithe, however, works against this purpose of our Lord, for instead of each giving according to his ability and receiving according to his need, each member is demanded to give a fixed percentage of his income to a local congregation. To some, this requirement is a terrible burden for they need much, and they, instead of receiving from those who have an abundance, are forced to give when they should receive. Contrarily to those who have much, the tithe is a light burden, and they give it while they bask in the ninety-percent that remains “theirs” believing that they have somehow given their due. While the poor among them remain poor, they continue in their “American Dream” lifestyles, looking much more like the world than like their Father in Heaven who gives out of his abundance.

Anti-Tithing: The Call to American Christians
The reality remains that to us who live in America who call ourselves “Christians,” we are all, comparatively speaking, wealthy. When we look at the rest of the world and the extreme poverty that is there, even us who are “impoverished” in this country are rich. When we consider that there are thousands, nay millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world who are starving and persecuted, why are we so content to hide behind a law of giving misapplied from the Old Covenant? Are we so unlike the Macedonians who saw not the local church but the church universal and loved that church after the manner which their Savior loved them? Are we so concerned about our own comfort and well-being that we are willing to neglect the tears of our brothers and sisters with empty stomachs and unclothed bodies?

The tithe, my dear brothers and sisters, will not fulfill the Law of Christ. Until God has written that Law upon our hearts and has given us his heart concerning the afflicted, the oppressed, and the impoverished among us and abroad, we shall never understand Christian Giving and the Extreme Joy of the Macedonians. May God give to us the same grace which he bestowed upon them so that we might love our brothers and sisters and might receive that Joy which surpasses all fleshly comfort. Amen.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:1-7).

When we think upon the writings of Paul compared to our own context, it is interesting to think about those whom he is addressing. He is not writing to the First Baptist Church of Ephesus or to the Ephesus Presbyterian Church or to the Reformed Church of Ephesus, but he is writing to the church at Ephesus. And what exactly does the apostle mean when he says that he is writing to the church at Ephesus? He explains this at the beginning of his letter: “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (v. 1:1). Therefore, his letter (shockingly) is intended for all who are in Christ in Ephesus–who have been bought with his blood and who share in the Blessing of his Spirit.

Though we are not told how many souls comprised the church at Ephesus, it is safe to assume, granting the size of the city of Ephesus, that there were many and that they were scattered throughout the great city in multiple congregations. Yet despite this, Paul addresses them as a single body comprised of those who are set apart for God and are faithful in Christ Jesus.

In our present context, the apostle’s address of the Ephesian church in this way is strange to us. Because of centuries of religious distortion, the church has been transformed from those who are the Lord’s (church from the northern dialect’s kirk from the Greek’s kuriakos- “Of the Lord”) to a sacred building intended to house worship services on Sundays. The distortion is profound, for it rails against Christ’s declaration that his people would not worship geographically but in Spirit and in truth (cf. Jn. 4:23), and it reinstitutes the shadow which Christ himself fulfilled. God’s people alone are the Church, and to label any building, place, or group that is not the faithful saints of God in Christ “the church” is a misnomer and a false declaration.

Taking Paul’s declaration of the church and applying to the text from Ephesians 4, it is an extraordinary exhortation. For he is exhorting a church comprised of multiple congregations and, no doubt, differing opinions on doctrine, to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (v. 4:3). This point cannot be missed. The apostle is not exhorting particular congregations to be at peace within their own congregations merely, but that all of the saints in Ephesus would be at peace with one another. Such a declaration would be no less extraordinary than exhorting the saints who comprise the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran congregations all within a quarter mile of one another on Six Forks Road in Raleigh to eagerly seek peace and unity with one another.

And this unity within the Church of God is not something that is merely icing on the cake of Christianity, but the apostle calls it the fruit of “[Walking] in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (v. 4:1). In other words, unity within the Body of Christ, i.e. unity among all the saints of God, is accomplished by Christians walking as they ought to walk.

How then are we to walk so that we, the saints of God, are unified as one body? The apostle writes, “[Walk] with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love” (v. 4:2). All these things when practiced by the people of God bring about unity in the Body. For when God’s people are humble, they understand who they are and the darkness from which they were brought and therefore understand that all who are saints of God are being brought from that same former darkness. This humility makes the people of God gentle people, for God was gentle with them in their own lack of understanding and sin. Recognizing God’s gentleness with them, the people of God are patient toward one another, suffering long with one another’s flaws knowing that God has long suffered their flaws. All these things culminate in love for one another, understanding the great love with which God has loved them, they are therefore eager to return it to those whom God loves.

When all these things are practiced by the saints of God, unity occurs. And it is not a man-created unity, but these things, being fruits borne by the Spirit of God, are a Spirit-created unity. For where the Spirit is present, unity is present, because, as the apostle writes:

There is one body (i.e. one church) and one Spirit–just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (v. 4:4,5).

The issue, therefore, is not an issue of unity of all those who label themselves “Christians,” but it is an issue of everyone whom God has called to himself. It would be foolish to strive for unity with those like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., who do not worship the same God as we worship or with those who profess Christ but live unholy lives, but when our God is singular, our Savior is singular, and his Word is singular, why then are we divided into many? I have heard it said by some that denominations are a necessary evil, but I believe the apostle Paul by his exhortation begs to differ. The greatest problem that we as the church face is not our doctrinal differences, but it is our unwillingness to be humble, gentle, patient, and loving to those whom God has been humble, gentle, patient, and loving. Oftentimes, we are more like Pharisees than we are Christians, measuring out a tenth of our mint, dill, and cumin, while neglecting love and mercy. If we were able by the Spirit to become humble, gentle, patient, and loving people, I sincerely believe that right doctrine would naturally follow.

What immediately comes to mind from the declaration, “Spiritual gifts are stewarded grace,” is the parable of the talents from Matthew 25. There Christ gives a parable concerning his Return and the ensuing Judgment (sounds Amillennial to me;)), and he likens it to three men who were all entrusted with a sum of money by their master. One man was given five measures of currency, another two, and a third one. The master went on a journey, and the first two men took their five and two measures of currency and immediately went and traded that currency so as to double that which their master had entrusted them. The third, however, did nothing with the one measure he was given, burying it in the ground and hiding it.

After a long time, the master returned and came to his servants to settle accounts with them. The first two presented their earnings to him, and he commended them saying, “Enter into the joy of your master.” The third came to him and presented to him the same measure his master had given to him, and he began to make excuses for himself as to why he did not use that which was entrusted to him to benefit his master. And the master responded to him this way:

You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt. 25:26-29).

What is interesting about this parable is that the master’s allotment is not merely to those whom we would label as “elect,” but that it granted even to one whose final destiny is the “place [where] there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” From this it can be gathered that God has given to all men a stewardship of grace, and that grace, irrespective of election, is to be used for the sake of God. And that which we in English call “talents” is I believe etymologically correct, for this parable is not restrained to the wealth that God gives, but it covers every grace that he gives to all men. Therefore all men will one day give an account for the graces that God has given to them, be they monetary, vocational, etc. graces, and they will be judged not only for how they have transgressed the law, but also for how they have not used that which God has granted them for the sake of his glory.

Though this parable is certainly a sobering and frightening warning for those who are not in Christ, it is more so for those who profess to be in Christ and yet have not stewarded that which God has given to them well. And though I believe this parable speaks to all graces given by God to men, it cannot be overstated that the parable deals particularly with money. And since the stewardship of money is such a relevant issue in the wealthy American church, this parable carries with it an even weightier implication.

That implication is this: Though it may seem to us that our money is merited by our labor and is therefore ours, it is in fact God’s and our possessing it is a grace. And in the parable we are essentially given two examples on how we are able to use our money–two positive examples and one negative. The two positive examples are singular, for both servants took all of that which their master had given them and immediately used it for the sake of their master. They did not give a tithe of it to their local synagogue and then lavish the rest upon themselves, but they took it all, recognizing that it was not their own but that it was their master’s. And they did thus because they loved their master and longed to enter into his joy.

The negative example demonstrates that we will be judged not merely by how we use our money but by how we do not use our money. For the wicked servant, like the others, recognized that money was his master’s and therefore did not spend it on himself, but he, unlike the others, did not use it to increase his master’s wealth. And though the wicked servant did not use the money negatively for his personal gain, he is judged and condemned by his master at his coming. For though he returned to his master precisely that which was given to him, he is damned because his desire was not for his master and he did not desire to enter into his joy.

You may say to me at this point, “This is a vague parable, for surely we are not to invest our wealth so that we are able to write Christ a check at his Return.” That is true, and parables for this reason are only beneficial insofar as they are explained and rightly applied. Therefore, it is no mere coincidence that Christ offers a clear picture of the Judgment following this parable:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” Then the righteous will answer him, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?” Then he will answer them, saying, “Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Mt. 25:31-46).

The correlation between the parable and the reality is clear. The two righteous servants are those who used all that God had given to them to minister to those who were in need. Christ calls this elsewhere, “Loving your neighbor as yourself” (cf. Mt. 22:29). For they, instead of using the grace of money upon themselves or hiding it so as to be no use to anyone, “invested” it in people who were hungry, thirsty, estranged, unclothed, sick, and imprisoned. And in this way they loved their Lord, for he commanded them, “Love the Lord your God with all you heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself” (cf. Mt. 22:37-39). For those who love God love their neighbors, and they love as Christ loved–becoming poor for the sake of the poor and dying for the sake of the lost.

The wicked servant, on the other hand, is not he who lives licentiously with his wealth or he who does not give a tithe of his earnings, but it is he who neglects the hungry, the thirsty, the estranged, the unclothed, the sick, and the imprisoned. For though he might live meagerly on his one talent and not possess all the luxuries of the world, he neglects those whom Christ has commanded him to love. The prophet Isaiah preaches the same judgment upon Israel, saying:

How the faithful city
….has become a whore,
….she who was full of justice!
Righteousness lodged in her,
….but now murderers.
Your silver has become dross,
….your best wine mixed with water.
Your princes are rebels
….and companions of thieves.
Everyone loves a bribe
….and runs after gifts.
They do not bring justice to the fatherless,
….and the widow’s cause does not come to them (Is. 1:21-23).

For the Lord has ever been about his people bringing justice to the needy, and he demands that his people who claim to love him seek for their justice. And the church does not accomplish this justice through political activism (though political pleading cannot be discounted), but she does it chiefly through self-sacrifice. The Macedonians demonstrated this by the way in which they lived their lives, and of them the apostle Paul writes:

We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints–and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us (2Cor. 8:1-5).

And what is amazing about their testimony is that they ministered unto the saints out of “their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty.” Though they might have only been entrusted with the same mere talent with which the wicked servant of the parable was entrusted, they used it all for the aid of the needy, giving “themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to [the ministers of God].” And because of their faithfulness, God was pleased with their stewardship.

The question of application is obvious, but we are all too eager to miss it: How is your giving? How do you use that which God has entrusted to you in the way of monetary grace? Do you, like the righteous, actively seek ways to use your wealth to minster to those who are in need, or do you consider yourself square with God because you have given your ten percent? For there will be a Day of Reckoning, and the King shall not be satisfied with anything less than one-hundred percent given for the sake of those whom he loves.

Lucy is a very affectionate dog. She loves attention from anyone and is quick to jump and to lie on the lap of whoever is sitting down, whether he is willing or not. She spreads her doggy love to everyone in the room without discrimination (even if they say she’s fat) and is quite content on being the center of attention, that is, until I step out of the house onto the back patio. Suddenly it is as if everyone else in the room disappears and I am the only one left. She quietly moves over to the door, positions herself at the best angle to watch me, lies down, and lets out an occasional whimper.

None of this is to say that I am the best dog owner ever or that I show her more affection than the other people in the house, but, as my one of roommates aptly said, “She knows who her daddy is.”

Sometimes I wonder if I act like I know who my Daddy is, or if I get so caught up pursuing the love and affection of the other people in the room that I do not notice when I have abandoned God for them. How often do I make sure that my eye is always focused on God so that when he “steps out onto the back patio” I am there watching and waiting for him?

What I have also grown to begin to notice is how my loyalty and faithfulness to God affects my loyalty and faithfulness to others. When I am focused on and faithful to God, my relationships align accordingly: I respect and honor my father and mother, I love and cherish my [wife], I esteem my pastors and elders, I appreciate my roommates, and I adore Lucy. The moment that I am not faithful to God, my faithfulness to everyone else dissipates: I dishonor my parents, I turn my eyes and heart and consider others than my [wife], I degrade and disrespect the leaders of my church, I am annoyed by my roommates, and I lash out at Lucy for being so darn affectionate. All this happens because I am disloyal to the One that I know I am supposed to be loyal to.

Lucy is a stupid dog–very affectionate, but stupid. No matter how stupid she is, she is smarter than me in that she knows what loyalty is and practices it every moment of her life. Sure she goes around the room from lap to lap when there is company over (which is only excusable for dogs by the way), but she never loses sight of her “daddy.” There is a lesson to be learned from dogs like Lucy, and that lesson is that even some of God’s creatures with the smallest capacity for thought know what true loyalty and faithfulness are better than we. What excuse then do we have, who are supposedly so much more rational and intelligent than dogs, when we turn aside from our Maker, are unfaithful to our spouses, are disrespectful to our parents, etc.? When we act unfaithfully, we show ourselves not to be rational creatures but to be animals that are lower than dogs. Perhaps one day by grace God will grant that we will be as loyal to him and to others we love as dogs are to their masters. Until that day, may we praise and thank God for his giving to us loyal companions that are shadows to us of such heavenly realities.

However, the reason that I am making such a statement is not so much based upon a disagreement with Spurgeon and his sympathizers, but is more of a reaction to an attitude of many that seems to have come about from it. For it is one thing to say, “Calvinism is the Gospel,” and mean by it that Calvinism is the proper understanding of what God has accomplished for men through his Son Jesus Christ, and it is another to say, “Calvinism is the Gospel,” and by that declaration attack every Christian that does not hold to Calvinism as defined by Dordt. For the former is a humble and mature assent to God’s revelation of himself in Scripture, and the latter is a proud and immature conquest to quell every non-Calvinist dissenter. The former comes from a heart-felt realization of unmerited grace received and creates in a person a heart of mercy and love, and the latter comes solely from an intellectual understanding of God’s revelation and creates in a person a heart of arrogance and disunity. The former understands the Gospel; the latter, despite theological precision, misunderstands the Gospel.

For what is the Gospel? It is the Good News that God has taken those who were once his enemies and has reconciled them to himself through the work of his Son by faith in him. In the believer, it is the recognition wrought by the Holy Spirit that he has fallen short of the glory of God and needs a Righteousness that is not his own. It is the Good News that God has loved us and has brought us to himself in order that we might bear the fruit of loving him and loving others in return. Therefore, the Gospel from beginning to end is the love of God for sinners, having its foundation in the foreknowledge of Eternity Past and its fulfillment in the adoption of Eternity Future. Hence, “God is love,” for he has so enveloped all things so that the greatest expression of himself to his people is love.

Therefore, when anyone claims anything to be the Gospel, that person who claims such must be saturated with love. And since the Gospel flows from the love of God, it must be a love that is likened to God’s love–a love that is compassionate, merciful, patient, and self-sacrificing. Thus if anyone claims to understand the Gospel who is not compassionate, merciful, patient, and self-sacrificing, he lies and does not practice the truth.

In the case of the statement, “Calvinism is the Gospel,” the Calvinist must be one who is a lover of men’s souls. He must be one who is compassionate, understanding that he once was misinformed and bore the burden of his own wicked philosophies. He must be one who is merciful, understanding the great mercy that he has received from God without merit. He must be patient, understanding that God has endured him with great patience in his own sins and heterodoxy. And he must be one who is self-sacrificing, understanding that God sacrificed himself, coming to serve others and to die for them.

Therefore when a person claims that “Calvinism is the Gospel,” and he himself is not compassionate, merciful, patient, and self-sacrificial, that person’s Calvinism is not the Gospel. For while he might understand the Ordo Salutis and might have read Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, he, like the Pharisees of old, has neglected the weightier matters of the Law–justice, mercy, and faithfulness (cf. Mt. 23:23), and by his neglect has distorted the Gospel. For a gospel without love is no gospel at all, and a gospel that does not transform a man’s heart is a powerless gospel.

Therefore, my question to you who call yourself a Calvinist is not, “How many points do you adhere to?” but it is, “How is your heart?” Do you by your doctrinal understanding love God and people, or do you by your doctrinal understanding flaunt your supposed superior knowledge and seek to destroy all who disagree with you? Do you endure with much patience and love those who disagree with you as God has endured and loved you, or do you loathe and despise those whom God has called you to love? For if you do not love and are not gracious and merciful, you have misunderstood the doctrines to which you so fiercely hold, and, ironically, you are not a Calvinist.

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up (Rm. 15:1,2).

As God has ordained it, his church is comprised of many people of many varying strengths and degrees of faith (cf. Rm. 12:3). And in spite of these variances, God has ordained that his church be one Body, united for the sake of his glory. And as such, the attainment of unity in the church for the sake of God’s glory must come through love and longsuffering, for the church at present remains in a fallen world and will, because of the variance within it, contain those who fail.

For this reason, the apostle calls the strong in the church to bear with the failings of the weak. For it is the strong who have the greater ability for love and longsuffering, and it is the strong who give to the church strength and maturity, and they who have such strength and maturity have the greater responsibility in the church for the accomplishment of unity.

And though there is this goal of unity through longsuffering, it must be accomplished through proper means with the proper end. What that proper end is not, the apostle writes, is “to please ourselves.” For a semblance of unity can be obtained in the church because of selfishness, whereby the strong bear the weak for the sake of their personal gain. This personal gain can manifest itself in filled pews, large offerings, and the lack of strife out of absence of accountability–all of which are done not for the sake of the weak but for the sake of the strong. This unity in the church obtained by selfish desire is not a unity that is glorifying to God, and it is not a unity that grows and strengthens the weak.

The proper end of unity through longsuffering, however, is, as the apostle writes, the “pleasing of his neighbor for his good, to build him up.” In other words, the strong are to bear the failings of the weak, not for selfish reasons, but so that the weak might obtain their good, which is to be built up in the church and in faith. And this is to be accomplished by “pleasing our neighbor.” In the context, this is not the pleasing of our neighbors in all things, but it is, as Romans 14 teaches, the pleasing of our neighbors in those things which are matters of opinion. It is, as the apostle writes, “not to destroy the work of God for the sake of food” (Rm. 14:20). For there are things that are not to be suffered in the weak that pertain to holiness and godliness, but convictions concerning days and festivals and foods and drinks, etc. are not to be among them. And since it is the strong who have the greater understanding that “everything is indeed clean,” they are to endure the present misunderstandings of the weak, so that they who are weak might one day become strong.

Therefore, those who are strong, for the sake of the weak, must keep the faith that they have between themselves and God and not place in front of the weak a matter which may cause them to stumble. “For,” as the apostle writes, “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rm. 14:17), and unity must be obtained through the longsuffering and love of the strong.

What then is speaking the truth in love? If you were to take a random survey of people in our country, you would likely receive a host of different answers. If you were to ask the question of a person of a postmodern persuasion, you would likely get an answer similar to, “Speaking the truth in love is not speaking at all, for truth is relative to the individual, and to force one’s opinion of truth upon another is offensive and intolerant and therefore unloving.” If you were to ask it of another, you might get the answer, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing what is true in such a way that it presents one’s view of truth as an opinion thereby making compliance to it optional and thus making it inoffensive.” If you were to ask it of one who professes to be a Christian, you might get an answer like, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing the truth of God’s Word in a way that is not judgmental and that withholds matters that might offend a person and turn them away from a church or the Faith.”

And though you obviously might get other answers if you were to speak to others, there is a common thread that runs through most of the answers that you would receive, namely, you are not to be offensive in what you speak. It is the common thread of American morality and individualism–that each person is entitled to his own beliefs and opinions and to question one’s opinion is intolerant and unloving. According to this morality, the highest expression of love is to let one be himself and not to stifle that which makes him a special individual. Therefore, the highest expression of love is, first, to love and to esteem one’s self, and, second, to allow others to love and to esteem themselves in the same way that one esteems himself. Therefore, one must look upon himself as his own end, and his truth is not to transcend himself so as to impose it upon others.

This type of morality is simply self-idolatry, for one’s chief end is himself and his expressions of truth and love do not transcend himself. It is self-worship, and its influence has not been contained to the secular culture. In the church, it is demonstrated in the gross individualization of God’s Word–the Word of Truth that by its Authors transcends all. It is seen in such questions raised of God’s Word as, “What does this passage mean to you?” and it is seen in the consumer mentality that imbues the American church: “How do you like the church you attend?” “How is the music?” “Do the services move you?” “Is the preacher a good speaker?” “Are the seats comfortable?” “What clothes are you allowed to wear?”–and on the questions go that demonstrate that even we who claim to worship Christ claim to worship him with the real end of worshiping ourselves. We, by and large, do not go to church to worship Christ and to build up his Body, but we go to church to edify ourselves and ourselves alone. Thus when something happens in a church that offends us or hinders our self-worship, we pack our bags and leave to find another church that will allow us to worship ourselves unhindered.

How our self-worship affects speaking the truth in love is undeniable, for we in our present moral mindset seek to speak the truth in a manner that does not ruffle another’s feathers so that we in turn might not have our feathers ruffled. We do not care so much that there is Truth that is to be adhered to or holiness that is to be pursued, but we care that there be a place and fellowship maintained that will allow us to continue in our self-centered religion. We might study God’s Word in our services and Sunday school classes, but there is no room for corporate accountability and discipline, and there is no room for Truth that transcends the individual. Thus God’s Word becomes merely a matter of personal opinion even in the church, and to challenge one’s personal opinion or conviction on the Word of God is to speak the truth in an unloving way.

Presuming for a moment that this view of speaking the truth in love is not the correct view, what then is the correct view of speaking the truth in love?

1. Speaking the Truth in Love is To Worship God Alone
Before we can rightly answer the question, “What is speaking the truth in love?” we must first understand that all people exist for the sole purpose of worshiping God and that all things exist for sole purpose of glorifying God. Not to understand this most basic of all truths is to misunderstand everything. It is through this lens that we must judge all of reality, and it is through this lens that we must answer our present question. Any philosophy or notion of truth that does not find its end in the worship and the glory of God is false and cannot properly answer the question of speaking the truth in love. Therefore, when we ask the question in the church, “What is speaking the truth in love?” we must ask does our present answer to the question find its end in the worship of God, or does it find its end in the worship of ourselves?

Therefore we must ask the question, “What does God ask of us to worship and to glorify him alone?” This question immediately removes us from the self-idolatry that is so common in the American church, and it places our lives in the balance of God’s glory alone. And what does God require of his people to worship him properly? We find the answer to this question in those whom God predestined before the foundation of the world, namely they are “to be conformed to image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn of many brothers” (Rm. 8:29). Therefore, for those who are called to be saints, their worship of God finds its greatest expression in becoming like Jesus Christ. This is expressed elsewhere as being “holy in all your conduct” (1Pet. 1:15; cf. 1Pet. 1:13-21), obeying God’s commandments (cf. Jn. 14:15; Rm. 6:15-23; 1Jn. 5:2), and loving God with all our being (cf. Deut. 6:5; Mt. 22:37), for this is the manner in which Christ perfectly conducted himself while he walked upon this earth.

Therefore, speaking the truth in love must have the end of glorifying God through holiness, obedience, and loving God, for this is the manner in which God has called his saints to worship him. Any notion of speaking the truth in love that does not have this end is a false notion of speaking the truth in love.

2. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Understand the Truth of God
It seems to be a most obvious statement that before one can speak the truth in love he must understand the truth, but how much of our lives do we invest in knowing the truth of God? If our calling in this life is to holiness, to obedience, and to loving God as he prescribes, how are we to do these things unless we know what God has spoken? The answer is simply that we cannot, and it is for this reason that God instructed Joshua to “meditate on [the Law] day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all is written in it,” and why David spoke, saying, “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Ps. 119:11). Our worship of God therefore is contingent upon our knowledge of his Word, and therefore our speaking the truth in love is contingent upon our knowledge of his Word as well.

3. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Build up the Body of Christ
Being that God has ordained that he would call a people to himself, and that that people would be a fellowship of God’s people existing for the mutual edification of one another in holiness, speaking the truth in love must exist to build up the church in holiness. The apostle Paul puts it this way:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Eph. 4:11-16).

This passage of the apostle is the fullest exposition of speaking the truth in love, and it would be helpful to understand in its entirety. First, we see that God has ordained that there would be offices in the church that would exist for the purpose of the building up the body of Christ so that the church would attain the unity of faith and of the knowledge of Christ in order that the church would grow into the fullness of Christ. These offices were ordained so that men could guide the church to glorify God by becoming holy and obedient through the knowledge of God’s Word. Second, this building up of the church by the prescribed offices were done also to prevent the church from being “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, and by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” In other words, there is a proper manner by which the church is to live that is prescribed by God, and an improper one that is devised by men and demons. Therefore, the offices that God has ordained exist, one, to build up the church in Knowledge and, two, to prevent the church from being deceived by false doctrine.

Third, these two things, i.e. growing into the fullness of Christ through the unity of faith / the knowledge of Christ and the dispelling of the false doctrines of men and demons, are called “speaking the truth in love.” We know this is so, because, one, the “truth” spoken of is called earlier, “the knowledge of the Son of God,” and the “love” has the purpose of growing the church into Christ (“fullness of Christ” from earlier), of holding and joining it with that which is equipped (“to equip the saints for the work of ministry” from earlier), and for its working together properly in the building up in love (“the unity of faith” from earlier). Therefore, the “speaking the truth in love” is not so much the means in which the truth is spoken, but it is the end for which it is spoken, namely the building up of the church into the fullness of Christ. However, the end of love does indeed dictate the means, for the fullness of Christ is dictated by what was called earlier, “the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”

Therefore, speaking the truth in love is done in seeking the unity of faith and the unity of the knowledge of Christ. When one speaks the truth in love he must it do so for the sake of the unity of the one Faith. And while there are many notions of unity, most of which center upon the capitulation of doctrine and truth and upon tolerance, the unity of which the apostle speaks is the particular unity of faith or belief. It is, in the context, not the capitulation of doctrine, but it is the teaching of doctrine. And it is for this reason that God has established church offices, so that the church might be taught rightly and be united under proper doctrine. And being that there is only one Faith, unity must be established under that Faith alone. Likewise, there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, and we are called to united under him alone through the knowledge of him alone. And it is for this reason that the apostle wrote earlier, “There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (vv. 4:4-6). Therefore, speaking the truth in love is done for the sake of unity–a unity that is bound by sound doctrine under the one Faith and Lord to which God calls and draws men.

4. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Seek the Good of him to Whom it is Spoken
Though when the apostle speaks of speaking the truth in love he is speaking particularly of the edification of the church, oftentimes speaking the truth in love must be done to individuals in particular instances. Therefore when the speaking the truth to individuals is done, it must be done in love. What then is loving to an individual? Taking into account that which we have already determined, loving an individual is desiring that they glorify and worship God alone, that they know the Truth, in order that they might be equipped for ministry in the church. Any desire to speak the truth outside of these ends is not to speak the truth in love.

Also, speaking the truth in love to individuals must be done in such a manner that those ends are evinced. For while one might inwardly desire to speak the truth to a soul so that he might glorify God by knowing the truth so that he might serve well in the Body, not demonstrating that by tone and declaration can prove to be futile. For speaking the truth to an individual will, more often than not, incite animosity and offense in the one to whom it is spoken, therefore it must be clearly demonstrated that the end of such truth-speaking is loving that person as God desires us to love one another. And though we can count on resistance to the truth even when spoken in love, we must do so in faith that the Spirit of God will take that which was spoken in truth and love and will use it to unify the Body in the proper knowledge of Christ.

Final Thoughts
From this brief survey, what is speaking the truth in love? It is, in short, the speaking of truth for the end of glorifying God through its proclamation so that individuals in the church might be called together in the unity of the knowledge of Christ in order that the church might be equipped for ministry. It is the loving of God and of others to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves and our esteem by men by boldly speaking that which God has spoken. For the proper loving of men is done through the proclamation of truth, and the proper proclamation of truth is done through loving men. Neither can be done without the other to the glory of God.

As unfortunate as it is, it cannot be denied that those who call themselves Christians are oftentimes the quickest to use such strong and despicable rhetoric. And among those Christians, many times the most vocal are those who call themselves Calvinists. And while I openly call myself a Calvinist and affirm what are called the Doctrines of Grace, I cannot help but be appalled and disgusted by the language that is used by many Calvinists to propagate their doctrinal beliefs. Amid other propagators of other things, Calvinists oftentimes stand out as the most hateful, most distasteful, and most unloving people, and they show no restraint or remorse in the language they use to dispel the beliefs of those who disagree with them. And while it is true what Luther said, that we must fight for “truth at all costs,” the manner in which many of us fight is not a part of the necessary costs.

Ironically, the manner in which many of us fight opposes that for which we claim to fight. For we claim with our words to be about the glory of God, yet we speak in manner that is disobedient to his command, namely, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” And while the proclamation of truth is one way in which we can love our neighbor, it must spoken with the end of loving our neighbor, otherwise it is sin. More often than not, this is the case of the most vocal of Calvinists, viz. that they speak the truth, but they do so in a manner that demeans and destroys. Therefore, those who speak thus do not speak in love and for the building up of their brother, but they speak in hate in order to win a debate, to demonstrate their own intellect and understanding, or to accomplish some other selfish end that only God knows.

You, who call yourself a Calvinist and speak in such a way, need to examine your heart and determine the motivation behind why you speak as you speak. Do you speak thus because you love your brother and desire to build him up in the knowledge of Christ, or do you speak thus to win a debate or to glorify your supposed superior comprehension of the Scriptures? For if you do the latter, you, despite your opinions on the matter, have not rightly understood the Scriptures, and you are nothing more than a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal, and God is weary of hearing you (cf. 1Cor. 13:1).

It has been almost a year since I began writing at faithforfaith.org, and this post is the 200th in that time that began on October 1, 2008. I have written much in that time and have shared much that has been on my heart, and yet I have not been as transparent as I ought to have been in my writings. The fact is that though I have been saved by grace and have been made holy by Christ, my life is far from a picture of holiness. And while few would likely expect me to use this medium as a display of my shortcomings, I feel that it is my duty to be open about who I am so that, one, I might not boast in the façade of holiness that is erected by my writings, and, two, so that I might be humbled at the revelation of my failures. Therefore, this post is one of my failures and weaknesses, so that in all things I might be reckoned truthful and that Christ alone might receive the glory. Soli Deo gloria.

Confession 1: I am an Prideful Man
Though a casual reading of the Scriptures would reveal that God has accomplished all things so that no man might boast (cf. Rm. 3:27; Eph. 2:8), my heart is often inclined to boasting in myself. In spite of what I know to be true, namely that God ordains and controls all things so that he might get the glory in all things, I have at times fallen and wallowed in my self-centeredness and have boasted in that which I have no right to boast. And though I believe that I have come far in this regard from that time when God first called me to himself, I am often reminded by my own desire to be known and heard that I have far to go in humility. I confess that even at the times when my heart’s desire is to honor Christ, I have slipped into hoarding a slice of that glory for myself, and in that I am ashamed.

Confession 2: I am not a Loving Man
Stemming from my pride is a love of self that trumps my desire and ability to love others as I ought. And though I might quell my conviction in this with what I think is love toward others, I rarely, if ever, love others as I love myself or especially as Christ loved the church. My life thus far has been by and large a quest for myself, and I have often tried to fulfill my quest at the expense of others. Such a quest, in spite of modern philosophies that declare the contrary, is a godless and hateful quest, and I am ashamed at my lack of love especially for those whom Christ died.

Confession 3: I am a Poor Husband
Chief among my failings in love is my failure to love my wife as Christ loved the church. Though I have seen growth in my love for my wife over the short time that we have been married, it is nowhere close to where it needs to be. Far too often I do not encourage her when she needs encouragement, I do not esteem her when she ought to be esteemed, and I degrade her when she ought to be praised. And though we are miles apart from each other in personality, I have used that fact wrongly as justification for my slowness to love rather than an opportunity to love. My wife is a wonderful and loving woman, and I do not deserve the great grace that she has been in my life.

Confession 4: I am a Tempted and Lustful Man
Though God has granted me such a grace in my wife, I have at times spit on that grace by my temptation and failings with regard to the opposite sex. I have, to my shame, more times than I can count looked upon other women with lust, turning my heart away from God and from the woman he has given to me. It is a despicable atrocity, and it is one that sets one’s feet upon the path to destruction. And though I have often found myself delighting in the Lord and repulsed by the notion of lustfulness, I must confess that my soul bears many scars from where that has not been the case.

Confession 5: I am a Failure to My God
The culmination of these things, in addition to countless more, has at times rendered me ineffective to God and his work. And though it can be granted that God has ordained all things, even our failings, for his good purposes, my desire to love myself more than my God has at times set myself volitionally against God. As such, I have not sought to glorify God in all things and have not preached his Gospel with my words and my deeds thus withholding from the world that which is most precious, namely Jesus Christ. I confess these things and pray that by God’s grace I might one day become a humble man, a loving man, a good husband, a content man, and a faithful servant to my God. May it one Day be said to me, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.” Amen.

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rm. 14:20-23).

Having been raised in a traditional and oftentimes legalistic Southern Baptist setting, I have heard time and time again the verses referenced above used to prohibit the practice of almost anything under the sun. Most often, the verses of the apostle are used as an argument against the drinking of alcohol, but their uses have extended to such matters as watching R-rated movies, listening to secular music, and anything that any particular soul might view as unclean. For this reason many in the church have done precisely what the Pharisees of old had done, namely they have placed around the law a hedge that would act as a safety buffer to prevent them from doing anything that might make a brother stumble. And while such a practice can certainly be done in a godly and loving manner, more often than not those who construct such hedges around the law seek to impose those hedges on everyone in the church, thereby making themselves legalists and enforcers of a law that is not God’s law.

Those who are modern-day Pharisees in the church by and large have misinterpreted this passage and have done so for the propagation of their legalism and religion rather than for the purpose for which the apostle is writing, namely for the love of the weak brother. And for this passage to be understood rightly, our prior misconceptions about it must be tossed out and replaced with the uncorrupted purpose of the apostle, which is my aim in this post.

To understand the purpose of the apostle’s discourse, we first we must understand the context in which the apostle is giving this exhortation. For the better part of the three chapters, the apostle has been admonishing the Christians in Rome to live peaceful lives with all men. To accomplish this, the apostle exhorts the church not to seek for their own personal retribution when they are wronged (vv. 12:14-21), to submit to the governing authorities (vv. 13:1-7), to love their neighbors as themselves (vv. 13:8-14), and finally not to divide over matters of personal opinion (vv. 14:1-12). All these things are to be done so that Christians might, insofar as depends on them, live peaceably with all, both with those who are in the world and those who are in the church.

Therefore the context in which we find our present exhortation from the apostle is the context of community, of living among one another in harmony and accord. For any act that might cause a brother to stumble must be done in the presence of that brother and therefore in the context of community with that brother. The apostle reinforces this aspect of his instruction at the beginning of his present discourse by saying, “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions” (v. 14:1). For the fellowship of the saints is to be a community of welcoming and love and not an arena for trivial debates. Therefore for a community of welcoming to exist, each brother in the fellowship must be known to such a degree that everyone in that fellowship is aware of each brother’s personal convictions. Therefore, while the fellowship of the saints is indeed a blessed gathering of God’s people for personal edification, it is also an opportunity to minister to those who are weaker in faith so that they too might grow in the knowledge and love of Christ.

What this text is not meant to be is a governor of all spheres of Christian life. For the apostle makes it clear that Christians live their lives in one of two worlds, at times in the fellowship of the saints and at others in privacy. The apostle makes this point later in his discourse: “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God” (vv. 14:21, 22). In other words, the Christian is to live freely insofar as his conscience and company allows it, for nothing is unclean in and of itself (cf. v. 14:14). What is to be his guide as to whether or not he practices his freedom in a particular context is the persons who are in that present context and the Christian’s love for them. Therefore, if a Christian knows he is free to eat meat and does so when he is in private and with those who are like-minded and eats it with thanksgiving, he eats it to the glory of God. However, if he is in the fellowship of one whose present conviction is that the eating of meat is not honoring to God, rather than using the time of fellowship as an opportunity for debate, he should not eat meat at that time out of love and respect for his brother. The same principle can be applied to the drinking of alcohol, the watching of particular movies, the use of tobacco, etc., for over such things there is no law, and therefore God has granted to these things the freedom of conscience.

And of course one will always object, “If it is better not to practice these freedoms in the context of community, would it not be better not to practice them even in private?” This has been the conviction of many godly persons, and many have chosen never to exercise their liberties for this reason. While this can and should be lauded in those who do so out of love for their brothers, it should never be lauded in those who use this passage as propagation for their legalism. And the distinction between the two types of persons is quite apparent. The one who convicted thus out of love, foregoes his liberties privately and does not require it of others, for he recognizes that his stance is one of personal conviction. The legalist, however, trumpets his restrictions with a disposition of self-righteousness and attempts to lord his restrictions over those who do not share his convictions. The legalist would be well-advised, as the apostle advises, to keep his faith between himself and God (v. 14:22).

What then is the purpose of the apostle in this controversial discourse? His purpose is to encourage peace and harmony in the fellowship of the saints by our knowing and respecting the convictions of those in the fellowship and restricting our liberties out of love for them. What this is not is a discourse to promote legalism and Pharisaical hedge-construction, but it is one to promote love for our brothers. Therefore, as it regards personal liberties, my admonition is that of the apostle’s, namely to practice your liberty insofar as your conscience will allow it and to restrict your liberties when you know that your brother may take offense to your practicing them.