What Is Christian Liberty?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

What liberty is — freedom from sin, from the law, from the penalty

• The question posed (in the host's frame): on several past episodes of this podcast, you've responded to questions by citing the New Testament reference that Paul made to something called Christian liberty. That prompted one audience member, a pastor, to reach out to us, and ask the question of: how do you determine where the dividing line is, between Christian liberty, and biblical mandates — or what we might call biblical standards? How do we negotiate that line, between those two, and determine where something falls? The answer opens with his books: well, when we talk about Christian liberty, let me first of all give you a reference. I have a book called Practical Holiness. And it has a chapter on legalism — which is something we should avoid: salvation by works, or living by rules and regulations. And it has a chapter on Christian liberty: what is our liberty, in Christ? And also, the book of Romans deals with the subject, at length. So I have a book — a verse-by-verse commentary — called The Message of Romans. So it will deal with Christian liberty, specifically, in detail, from Romans — especially Romans 14, which I'll refer to. So: our life in Christ is characterized, first and foremost, by freedom, liberty. And what do we mean? Freedom from sin. We're no longer bound by sin. We're no longer forced to sin ('forc', as heard). We can actually resist sin, and live a holy life. So freedom here does not mean license: I do everything I want to do, even things that are detrimental to me. No. It's like a prisoner: you're set free from prison. Does that mean, the next day, you can go back to jail? No. You're free from prison. And so you — the implication is: you won't do things that will cause you to go back. And nobody can make you go back. So: freedom from sin. Also, freedom from the law. Although the law was good — it taught us what was right; it taught us that we were sinners, because, because we constantly failed to keep the law, it taught us that we needed a savior — but the law itself did not give us the power, over sin. And the law was not our savior. And living by the law couldn't save us. So the law was good, for its purpose: it was pointing to Christ. Now that we have Christ, we're not under the law. Now, we still must follow godly teachings. But we're not under the law of Moses. So there's freedom from the law. And then, of course, there's freedom from the penalty of sin — which is death. And then there is freedom from the ceremonies, that are no longer binding on us. And so Christian liberty means: our basic orientation is, I'm a child of God. I'm full of the Holy Spirit. I can now live a holy life. And I have freedom. I have freedom in my choices. I can choose A, or B. You know, I can choose my job, my career, my marriage partner. I can choose the way I'm going to serve God. Now, all of that, of course, is in scriptural boundaries.

Not freedom to sin — knowledge, power, and the commandments that remain

• So, we talk about Christian liberty. It doesn't mean freedom to go back to sin — because that would be the opposite of liberty. I use the example, sometimes: you're driving along the cliff. And if you go off the cliff, the law of gravity will cause you to plunge, and crash, and die. So does freedom mean: I'm free from gravity; I can ignore it; I'm going to drive off the cliff, if I want to? No, that's foolishness — because it kills you. So, in that context, freedom, first of all, means knowledge. You know the law of gravity exists, whether you like it, or not. And you can't repeal it, no matter what you say. And you have the power, not to drive off the cliff. So, if you are forced to go off the cliff, you would not be free. If you were ignorant — you didn't even know there was gravity, and you drove off the cliff, of ignorant — we would not call that free. So, in that analogy, freedom means: first of all, you know right and wrong; you're not ignorant. And second of all, you have power, to do what's right, and beneficial. So our liberty, in Christ: first of all, we now know God's will. We know what sin is. So we can avoid it. So it's not freedom to sin. That's not liberty. And then we have power. So it'd be horrible, to know what's right, but still have no ability, to do what's right. So Christian liberty, first of all, means: the knowledge, of right and wrong; and the ability, to do what's right — so as to preserve your own life. So Galatians 5 says: 'brethren, you've been called unto liberty. But do not use that liberty, as an occasion, to the flesh.' Because that would destroy your liberty. So Christian liberty does not mean we have liberty, to sin. So: anything that the Bible teaches us, we're still obligated to follow that. So — even, we're not under the law of Moses — but the Great Commission, that Jesus gave, in Matthew 28:18-20: verse 20 says, about the converts that the disciples would make: 'teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.' Jesus also said, in John 14:15: 'if you love me, keep my commandments.' So it's foolish to say: we're not under law, therefore we have no obligations. No. We're not under the law of Moses. We've been set free, from that. The law couldn't save us. It only taught us that we were sinners — the law — and pointed the way, to Christ. But we still have commandments, to obey, as far as living a godly life. And if we violate those commandments, we go back to the life of sin. We break our fellowship, with God. The result is death. The ultimate result is eternal death, the lake of fire. That's not freedom. That's the exact opposite of freedom.

Scriptures: Galatians 5; Matthew 28:18-20; John 14:15

Where liberty lives — words, principles, and the discretion between

• So, whenever we talk about Christian liberty, we're talking about — a pastor of a local church: he will give some teachings, but he will give some leeway, where people can make their own personal choices. And even, as the larger fellowship: we have some fundamental beliefs and teachings, but we give pastors certain leeway, how they're going to teach it. And we should. That's called Christian liberty. So: what Christian liberty does not mean: it does not mean liberty to sin. It does not mean liberty, to violate the specific teaching of scripture. Now, when I say specific teaching: some things are taught, in so many words. Some things are taught, in principle. So: the Bible says, don't lie, don't steal. So you can't say: well, I have Christian liberty, to be a thief. No. I have Christian liberty, to lie. No. 'All liars shall have their part, in the lake of fire.' The Book of Revelation says. Now, the Bible says: dress modestly. What does that mean? Well, to some extent, that's subjective. And so, therefore, pastors will try to give guidelines, of what's appropriate. But even individuals have to decide what's appropriate — different context. So there is an area, of Christian liberty. But to say we can ignore the command to dress modestly ('address modestly', as heard), that's wrong. So, to say there might be differences, among individual believers, or even among churches, as to how to implement that: there is an allowable discretion, there. But, to say we're just going to abandon that — the Bible ('ible', as heard) teaches us not to wear ornamental jewelry. Well: some may say, well, I think a wedding ring is ornamental. I don't want to wear it. Another person might say: well, I feel like it's a very important symbol, especially in my culture. And if I'm not wearing it, people think I'm living in adultery, and, or fornication. And so, if I find something that's moderate, I feel like I should have that choice. Well, that could be an example where both people are saying: we want to follow the scriptural teaching. But, in my context, my life, my culture, my city, my church, my society: I feel, choice A is the best way to fulfill that scripture. Another person says: well, I think, choice B. We can have differences, even within the same fellowship. Because now, if somebody says: I don't believe that scripture applies; I'm not going to follow it; I'm going to disobey it — well, then, you shouldn't be part of our fellowship. So, the guidelines would be: what scripture teaches. The guidelines would be: what is sinful, or not. So Christian liberty properly applies, to matters that are not dealt with, in scripture — or, that explicitly allowed differences, in scripture. Or, another way to say it: it's dealing with non-moral matters. Not things of morality. But non-moral things.

Scriptures: Revelation (book-only)

Romans 14 — neither despise nor judge; and the stumbling block

• And so let's look at the specifics: Romans 14. The whole chapter is excellent, in regard to this. But here's some, starting with — verse 5? One person — well, no. Maybe I should start with verse 1: 'receive one, who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes, over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things. But he who is weak eats only vegetables.' So Paul's given the example. Really, in the church, we don't have the dietary laws, of the Old Testament. So one person — and Paul is indicating which is correct: you have liberty, to eat what you want. You can eat pork, if you want. But he who is weak eats only vegetables. So someone who feels like — you know what — and now it goes beyond just the Jewish law, of pork. But maybe this guy, for some religious reason, thinks: I shouldn't eat any meat; I should eat vegetables. So Paul calls him weak — because that's not really accurate; it's not really required. But even in that case: 'let not him who eats despise him who does not eat. And let not him who does not eat judge him who eats. For God has received him.' So the person who is doing something, which is allowable, shouldn't ridicule the person who thinks: man, I better not eat pork, or, I better not eat any meat. And there could be people, in the church, like that — like someone raised in a Hindu tradition: even though they become a Christian, they may not want to eat beef, because it just is against their culture. Or, I like to use the example: Americans — I grew up in Korea, where it was acceptable to eat dog meat, especially in the summer, in the hot time; it was considered healthy. Well, I tell the average American: you're free, in Christ; you're not under the law; I would like to serve you a dog cutlet. Would you partake? Well, no. Well, what's the matter? You don't believe in liberty? Well, but — I just don't want to. Even if it's not a sin, this is not something I wish to do. So I shouldn't make fun of you, say: what's wrong with you? You don't believe in liberty, in Christ? I shouldn't make fun of you. On the other hand, the one who doesn't participate shouldn't judge the other: so you're eating meat; you're a big sinner; you're a hypocrite; you're going to hell, because you're eating pork. Wait a minute. That is not a moral issue. And it's not a requirement, of the New Testament. So therefore: the one who participates should not despise, or ridicule, the abstainer. The abstainer should not judge the participator. And now, here's some pretty strong language, verse 4: 'who are you to judge another servant? To his own Master he stands, or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand. For God is able to make him stand.' 'One person esteems' — and now he gives another example — 'one person esteems one day, above another. Another esteems every day, alike. Let each be fully convinced, in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it, to the Lord. He who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats, to the Lord — for he gives God thanks. Than — he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.' And then he goes on to talk about: but we should be careful, of not hurting a brother. So even though — let's say I've got some new Christians. And all their life, they've been taught that it's a sin, to eat pork. Well, if I just suddenly eat pork — even though that's allowable, and scripture doesn't forbid it — they look at me: you just sin; you just compromise. Well, if my leader is sinning, well, maybe he's a hypocrite. I should just leave the church. Or maybe I should commit other things. And so you do have to be careful, of your impact. So don't use your liberty, to hurt one another. So, going back to Galatians 5, we have liberty — but not for the flesh. It also says: but serve one another, in love. So don't use your liberty, in a way that would hurt someone. So Paul goes on to explain, back here in Romans 14:7: 'for none of us lives to himself. No one dies to himself.' And then he explains that. Then, verse 10: 'but why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt, for your brother? For we shall all stand, before the judgment seat of Christ.' And then he goes into, verse 12: 'so then, each of us shall give account, of himself, to God.' God will be the judge. Therefore, verse 13: 'let us not judge one another, anymore. But rather resolve this: not to put a stumbling block, or to cause to fail, in a brother's way.' King James says, offense (the phrase stands garbled, as 'a cause CA to fail, or a cause to fail', in the text). So some people say: well, that offends me — so you should abstain. But that's really not the context. It's — the offense is something that causes a person to stumble. So: if I'm a mature Christian, and I don't think you should wear a tie — and I say, you know what, that offends me; you should not wear a tie, because it's offensive, to me — that's not what it's talking about. But it's talking about the example I gave: if I'm a new Christian, and I see you eating pork, I say: wow, I can't believe that preacher is living in sin. What does the church come to? Well, you should care about that. And Paul goes on to say: you know what, if eating meat would offend my brother, cause my brother to stumble, to backslide, lose his faith — God, I won't eat meat, the rest of my life. Now, he's not really assuming that would be required. But he's just giving illustration. So the offense is not the stronger brother getting mad, trying to force another person to conform, to his version of what's appropriate, conservative Christian values. But not giving offense means: a weak Christian, a Christian with lacking full knowledge, or a new convert, really misunderstanding your Christian liberty, and causing them to lose their faith, in God, and backslide. Well, you should be careful, not to do that.
• So, let me summarize. We have liberty, in non-moral matters. We have liberty, where the Bible is silent, or the Bible expressly gives discretion. And the examples we have, here in scripture, of: eating of certain food; the observance of certain days. So some people observe certain holidays; some don't. Now, we should not participate, in pagan worship. But if some person says: well, I think I can participate in a holiday, cause I'm doing it unto the Lord — we should respect that. If someone else says: you know what, it has too many associations, with paganism, or with my past, and it's negative, so I'm not going to participate — well, we should respect that. Someone says — and I had this case, in my church in Austin: we dealt with these things, especially with people coming from different backgrounds, converts. I had some converts that said: you know, we've learned that, for reasons of health, we shouldn't eat meat. And we read Genesis, the way we read it: in the very beginning, God gave a vegetable diet. So we want to go back to God's original plan. So anybody that eats meat, they're, they're — you know, they're wrong. I had to pull them aside, and said: wait a minute. If that's your conviction, fine. But others have a different conviction, fine. And we all have a potluck dinner: you can pick the vegetables. And, but somebody else, pick the meat. Eventually, as they mature, they maintain their diet. But whenever we came together, to the church, they would eat whatever was served. Because it was no longer a matter — in their mind — of sin, or compromise. It was a matter of what was appropriate. And, so, for the unity of the church, they wouldn't make an issue of it. And I think that's a mature approach.

Scriptures: Romans 14

Idol food — and the four tests, worked on tobacco

• Now, also: an issue came — and you see this in 1 Corinthians 6-10 — further discussion, of Christian liberty. And this is the context of food, offered to idols. So, a big issue, back then, was: typically, people would offer food, especially meat, at the temple, and to idols. But, of course, the idol couldn't eat it. The priest would take some, for them. But some, the priest would resell, on the market ('the pr would resell', as the letters stand). Or some, it might be just a banquet, where they pray, and offer to the idols. But then they would partake. And so the question becomes: what if you go to somebody's house, and you don't know — they may have dedicated all the food, in the house, to an idol? Or maybe they went to the temple, and they bought the meat, back from the temple, that had already been given to an idol. Well, should you eat of it, or not? And so Paul says: look, an idol is nothing ('an idle is nothing', as heard). An idol has no power, over us. So, if you eat some food, that somebody offered to an idol, it's not going to hurt you. Don't worry about it. Don't ask questions. Just eat it. But if the person makes a point: I offer this food to the idol; I want you to eat this idol food — well, then, you shouldn't. Not because it'll hurt you. But because you are now condoning idolatry. It's not for your conscience' sake; it's for their conscience' sake ('conscious sake', as heard). So that unbeliever — or maybe that new convert, sitting next to you — will think: wow, you are worshiping the idol; you're giving honor, to the idol. And he said: now, actually, there are demons, who receive the worship, given ('of the th given', as the letters stand) to those idols. So, if you in any way look like you are condoning, or participating, in idolatrous worship, then you are compromising your identity. And so Paul gives — if you read carefully, Paul gives four guidelines, that, even when you have Christian liberty — so, you don't have Christian liberty to steal, or to lie, or to wear immodest clothing ('to wear a modest clothing', as the phrase stands) — but what if you say: well, in this one area, of eating certain food, I have Christian liberty; I can do whatever I want. But there are four tests. Number one — and you can see this in 1 Corinthians, if you read the whole book, but especially chapters 6 through 10: number one: is it beneficial? Is it good for me? So, if something is hurtful, for me — even if it's not sinful — I need to be careful. My body is the temple of God. I'm the steward. So the first question, even in exercising my liberty, is: is it beneficial? Number two: can it gain power over me? If it has the power to overcome me. Number three: will it harm others? Will it be a stumbling block, as we previously described ('descried', as heard)? Would somebody else misunderstand, and cause them to lose their faith? And then, number four: can I give God glory? So let me give you an illustration. I think Christians should not smoke, or use tobacco. I think it's actually sinful. Because there are scriptures that talk about our bodies, the temple of the Holy Spirit. And so, I think that's wrong. But let's just say, somebody says: you know what, I think I should be able to choose, in that regard. I don't — there's no — obviously, there's no scripture that says: thou shalt not smoke tobacco products. Because it was unknown, in the ancient world. It's known to the new world. But: so what if somebody says, you know, you can't make me? I would say: well, wait a minute. That's not the end of the subject. Number one: is it beneficial? Well, no. 400,000 Americans die, every year, because of tobacco. So if anything is harmful, that — that's it. No. So even Christian liberty says: no, you shouldn't. Second: can it gain power over me? Yes. Tobacco is — one of — nicotine is one of the most addictive substances ('substance', as heard), more than drugs. So yes, it could cause you — you know, to affect your ability to fast, to pray, to do the will of God. Yes, it can gain power over you. Number three: can it harm others? Absolutely. Even if I thought: I will never get sick; and I can control it; and I can use it, in moderation. What about my kids? What about young people, in the church? What about converts? What about people who struggled? You know, even if that — the only reason — was, for their sake: it'd be worth my Christian example. And then: can I give God glory? Can I really honestly say, as I'm partaking: I'm praising God, thanking God, for this? I don't think so. So, I use that simple analysis, of a — hopefully, for us — non-controversial subject, to say: here is how you can ask these four questions.

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 6-10

[captured text ends mid-sentence]

• So, to summarize: I think, within local churches, there should be certain discretion. And the pastor can help guide this. He can teach: here's what's biblical; here's what's absolute. And here's what I'm asking everyone to do, to implement biblical principles. So, even though some things may not be spelled out, in scriptures — like how long your dress should be, you know — you have to have modesty. And the pastor can say: here is how we define modesty, in our context. And I'm asking, for the sake of unity, and a clear witness, clear example: I'm asking everyone, in the church, to follow these guidelines, for modesty. I think that's a valid point. But the pastor may also say: there's some things I'm not going to teach on, because they're not scriptural. Or there's some things I'm going to give you discretion — like, sometimes, there are places we might go, for entertainment, or recreation, that, in one city, might be wholesome; another city might be greatly associated with drunkenness, and sexual immorality, and so on. So, in one context, we may say: it's okay, to participate, in a certain event, or sport, or activity. But in another place, it's advisable not to. Or, sometimes, the pastor may say: I'm going to give you discretion, of which places would be wholesome. Or maybe the pastor won't even say anything. So I think, within a local church, there's a certain discretion. So, where there's that discretion, that each member should not attack, and judge, one another. Likewise, when it comes to churches, across the fellowship: there should be a certain leeway. So we have the articles of faith; we have position papers. It spells out, in pretty strong detail. I think we should all follow those. But places where scripture is silent, and even our organization is not taking an official position, and put it in writing, and everybody voted for it — well, then, I think we should allow discretion. So one Pastor should not attack another Pastor, in those areas of discretion. We need a mature, wholesome attitude, for Christian liberty. Doesn't mean everybody go to the lowest common denominator, of the newest convert, or the newest church. We can disagree. But that doesn't mean we have to attack, ridicule, condemn, judge. We can say: you know what, some things we have to leave to God, to judge. Now, if it's a harm, to our local body, or harm to our fellowship, we have to address it. But there are certain things, we have to have a certain degree of respect, tolerance, of differences, and Christian liberty. I think a mature understanding, for a local church, and a mature understanding, of a fellowship, is very important. We can't split over every preference. So I would like to say: there are scriptural convictions, that we should have. So, whether I feel convicted, or not, doesn't matter. Scripture teaches it; I need to follow it. Gender distinction, modesty of dress, and so forth: those are scriptural teachings. But there are personal convictions, which I think is advisable, for me — and God may have indeed given it to me — but doesn't mean it's for everybody else. And even a local church: the pastor may feel led, in that environment, and what God has called that church to do, and to be, to ask the church to rally around certain points. But if it's not a scriptural teaching, we have to relegate it, to a personal conviction, or a pastoral preference. And I think even teaching, as such, has greater integrity, and a greater probability, that people will gladly follow it, when you're very clear, and honest: here's what I believe the Bible requires; here's a biblical application, of a biblical principle, that I'm asking everybody to do — as opposed to: here's a pastoral preference, that I want you to follow; and here's a personal conviction, that I follow — when you have those categories — and there the captured text ends, mid-sentence: the sentence's completion, and the episode's outro, are not in the captured text (see the truncation flag on this record); nothing has been supplied to fill the tail.

Scripture index: Galatians 5; Matthew 28:18-20; John 14:15; Revelation (book-only); Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 6-10.