Matters of Conscience
A topic of grace importance on how
the Christian is to exercise his Liberty in Christ. How does the Word of
God affect this? How does he respond to given advice on a topic?
Matters
of Conscience:
Or the relationship between a
Christian
and his God-given Liberty in Christ
by
Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
The Christian conscience is a complex topic to study and think
through. For the purposes
of this brief inquiry my desire is to set forth the question, “What
binds the Christian conscience to service before Christ?”
This is an exceedingly important question for the practical life
and walk of the Christian. If
the Christian is unaware of what is binding upon his conscience, he may,
in all likelihood, be blown by every wind of doctrine that arises, or
even by old wives tales told at the local gossip house.
This topic is of such import, that the Westminster Confession
of Faith dedicated an entire chapter to explaining “Christian
Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.”
Martin Luther, the 16th
century Reformer who “officially” sparked the Reformation by nailing
his theses on the door of the Wittenberg church against Roman Catholic
Indulgences, gave this testimony when the Church called him to the city
of Worms to stand trial for his beliefs, as is documented by
D’Aubigne, “Upon
this Luther replied without much hesitation: “Since your most serene
majesty and your high mightinesses require from me a clear, simple, and
precise answer, I will give you one, and it is this: I cannot submit my
faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the
day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless
therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the
clearest reasoning, — unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I
have quoted, — and unless they thus render my conscience bound by
the Word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a
Christian to speak against his conscience.” And then, looking
round on this assembly before which he stood, and which held his life in
its hands, he said: “HERE
I STAND,
I CAN DO
NO
OTHER; MAY GOD
HELP ME?
AMEN!”
Luther, constrained to obey his faith, led by his conscience to death,
impelled by the noblest necessity, the slave of his belief, and under
this slavery still supremely free, like the ship tossed by a violent
tempest, and which, to save that which is more precious than itself,
runs and is dashed upon the rocks, thus uttered these sublime words
which still thrill our hearts at an interval of four centuries: thus
spoke a monk before the emperor and the mighty ones of the nation; and
this feeble and despised man, alone, but relying on the grace of the
Most High, appeared greater and mightier than them all. His words
contain a power against which all these mighty rulers can do nothing.
This is the weakness of God, which is stronger than man. The empire and
the Church on the one hand, this obscure man on the other, had met. God
had brought together these kings and these prelates publicly to confound
their wisdom. The battle is lost, and the consequences of this defeat of
the great ones of the earth will be felt among every nation and in every
age to the end of time.”
It is important here to stress Luther’s conviction and the
manner in which he set forth his conviction.
It was twofold: first, the testimony of truth rests on the
Scriptures, and second, his conscience was bound by what he understood the
Scriptures to say. It
is interesting to me that Luther said that to go against conscience is
neither right nor safe for a Christian.
What did he mean by this? First,
he meant that his conscience was molded and shaped by the testimony of
the Bible and not by men’s opinions.
It was that which bound his conscience, and by that binding he
could not, in good conscience, simply rest upon the opinions of men; and
certainly in his day the “opinions of men” were the “infallible”
dictums of the Roman Catholic popes.
He even mentions them in his denial to recant when he says that
popes and councils have often contradicted one another.
At this point, it is simply important for the Christian to
understand that the Reformation was sparked by Scripture alone, and not
the dictates or opinion of men, councils , popes or anyone else – not
even Luther’s opinions. Conscience stands bound to the Word of God, and the Word of
God alone.
It may be helpful for us to
first define what we mean by “conscience.”
The word “conscience” derives from Middle
English, from Old French, and from the Latin conscientia.
It refers to the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or
blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together
with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.
Secondly, it is the faculty, power, or principle enjoining good
acts. It is the mind’s
reflexive act upon knowledge to the good of the self.
If that is a little technical, then may we say that the
conscience is the little voice God has given us in our heart (or head)
to determine, based on what we know or have studied about he facts of a
given situation, what is right and what is wrong. That is why Jonathan Edwards believed that conscience gave
way to convictions. And
biblically speaking “convictions are human operations to the working
of the divine Spirit, who “doth the finishing strokes” on Christ’s
salvation.”
It is the furtherance or continuance of salvation in the mode or
manner of sanctification. When we make right choices based on the Bible we become more
fully sanctified. If we
make wrong choices based on the opinions of men, our sanctification is
hindered, and our conscience begins to eat at us because the Spirit of
God is there to convict us of our misapprehension or misunderstandings.
It may be, though, in some cases, that we have a convoluted
understanding of a particular situation and then make a judgment based
on bad information. Yet, as
far as we can tell, we made a “good” choice.
Sometimes the inner working of the Spirit at that point is
overshadowed by our incorrect assumption or bad theology.
For instance, if a young lady is recently converted and her
minister tells her that God does not approve of lipstick, and she is
convicted of this by forceful persuasion, then she might, based on
incorrect knowledge, stop wearing lipstick.
In the long run, that is a hindrance to her, not a help; even
though she has appeased her conscience by doing what she thought ought
to be done. That is why
Luther’s statement about not going against conscience, is vital to
understand in light of his first statement about being persuaded by
the Word of God.
When we are dealing with the
binding of the conscience, we are talking about the manner in which a
Christian’s conscience becomes a slave to a given truth.
I do not, at this point, want to make a distinction between
binding the conscience with the Bible and binding the conscience with
the authority of opinions. Let
us just say that the conscience can be bound in both instances, where
someone or something may, with some form of knowledge, influence it.
Let us use another example, or two perhaps to demonstrate this
clearly. The conscience can
be bound, or a slave to, a particular idea.
For instance, a man may think that eating bacon cooked in a stick
of butter, along with a 5 eggs and three slices of cheese in an omelet
every morning, is healthy. Another
person with medical facts, may approach this man and say that he has
lost his mind, and that eating such things would dramatically raise his
cholesterol and possibly, over time, cause heart failure.
Now, I ask you reader, who is right?
I would imagine you would say that such a breakfast every morning
would be bad for you. It may be that with the information you have from life
experience, and this medical report stated by this other man, that your
conscience would never allow you to eat breakfast like that everyday.
What if I were to inform you that on the Atkins’ diet, eating
this way was completely acceptable, and actually lowers your
cholesterol, medical speaking? You
may deny it. Studies,
though, show that the Atkins’ diet plan, followed faithfully for
breakfast, lunch and dinner, actually lowers cholesterol and improves
energy, weight loss and the like. Now
without all the facts, this still may see outlandish. But let us enter
conjecture for a moment. If
we have all the facts, and the facts conclusively demonstrate that
Atkins improves health by eating fats and proteins without eating
carbohydrates and sugar (something you would have to give up to eat this
way), then your conscience had been bound by a medical report without
all the facts. It may be
that your knowledge on the subject was simply a result of what you
believed “common sense” dictated, and what the medical practitioners
have said for so long. Well,
with this new information your knowledge improves, and your conscience
on such matters may free you to eat bacon cooked in butter with 5 eggs
in a cheese omelet with no problem.
Let’s use another example; let us say that a minister of the
Gospel in a solid biblical church, preached on the necessity of praying
in a kneeling position in order to exemplify humility before God.
Now, his desire in this sermon is to convince the hearers to what
his heart is fully convinced is right and good.
What determines what is right and good?
Biblically speaking, the Bible alone determines what is right and
good. If the minister
preaches a sermon about kneeling during prayer, he had better have an
airtight case to bind the conscience of the Christian.
Why must his case be airtight?
Well, first we must ask, “Who is the Lord of the church?”
The answer to this is “Jesus Christ.”
Next we ask, “Who has authority to dispense laws for Christian
conduct to the people of God?” The
answer is “Jesus Christ.” (We will prove this out in a moment.)
Are ministers messengers of Jesus Christ?
Yes, they certainly are. The
Bible says in 2 Corinthians 5:20, “Now then, we are ambassadors
for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you
on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.”
The word here is “presbeuow” which means, “to act on behalf
of, an ambassador.” When
ministers preach the Gospel, they are acting as voice boxes for what
Christ has said in His Word. There
is nothing outside His Word that lawfully binds our conscience in this
way. Even the laws of a
country or land are to be subject to the Word of God.
If America was to create a law that says “murdering your
next-door neighbor is OK,” then every Christian would protest that law
because the Bible says that murder is sin.
Now, in getting back to our minister and his sermon on kneeling
while in prayer, he would have to come up with a text to defend this.
Let us say he uses Psalm 95:6, “O
come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our
maker.” See, when we come
before God we are to kneel down. This
seems biblical enough. When
we pray, we should kneel before the Lord our Maker. “See,” says the
minister, “this proves kneeling has been the position to pray in for
thousands of years.” And
then the minister goes on to prove that Christians should do the same.
He is attempting to bind the conscience of the Christian to
action with the Bible. Christians, from hence forth, should kneel while praying.
Now, I ask you reader, is this right?
Should you kneel, and only kneel, in prayer?
The answer to this is not an opinionated “yes” or “no.”
The answer to this, and every action that the minister would
attempt to bind the conscience by, should be lifted out of a careful
exegetical contemplation of the Word of God.
We might ask, is there any other place in the Bible that talks
about praying and the posture of praying?
Why, yes there is! For instance in 2 Kings 20:2, Hezekiah, in bed, ill, and upon
death, did the following, “Then he turned his face to the wall, and
prayed unto the LORD, saying…”
It seems Hezekiah prayed while laying on his side. Should this be the model?
God, as a matter of fact, answered Hezekiah’s prayer and gave
him an additional 15 years of life.
Well, praying on one’s side seems to enact extraordinary
blessing! Or what of Abraham’s servant? Genesis 24:11-12, “And
he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at
the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.
And he said, O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good
speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham.”
The servant of Abraham had him camel kneel down and then prayed
while sitting on him (possibly?). Or
what shall we say of this prayer: “Then
Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly…”
in Jonah 2:1? This would be difficult indeed to find a giant fish, crawl
into his belly, and pray every morning in such a manner. Or shall we follow the Lord of glory and pray as He did?
Matthew 26:39 says, “And he went a little further, and fell on
his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Jesus prayed prostrate. That
means he was laying on the ground face down and prayed.
Is this the proper position? What of the publican and the
Pharisee? In Luke 18:11-13 it says, “The Pharisee stood and
prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men
are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast
twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the
publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his
eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to
me a sinner.” The publican praying “standing”.
Maybe this is the position to pray in?
Now I think at this point you have come to see the light.
If the minister of the Gospel was to attempt to preach a sermon
on the posture of prayer, he should then take into account all this
information and come to a conclusion that the posture can vary.
Kneeling in prayer is not the only option.
But, it would be exceedingly wrong, it would be sin, to bind the
conscience of a Christian with a sermon that says kneeling is the only
way to pray. I hope you see this point clearly.
In what I have said so far, I
hope you are becoming aware of the intricacies involved in Christian
liberty and the manner of conscience before God.
We are to possess good, clean consciences before God in all we
do. Acts 23:1 says, “And
Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have
lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”
1 Peter 3:16 says, “Having a good conscience…”
Paul also said in Acts 24:16, “And herein do I exercise myself,
to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward
men.” This is a very
important verse. Our
conscience should be void of any amount of offence towards God and
towards men. That means all
we do is based on a kind of faith that is clean and pure before God. For “whatever is not of faith is sin,” (Romans 14:23); in
other words, whatever is not of the faith (or body of sound
doctrine found in the Bible) and from the understanding we possess
before God, the light that we have by the Bible, if we act without it
knowing otherwise, it is sin to us.
How are our consciences to be bound?
The Word of God, and our understanding of the Word of God bind
them. No one, at any time,
should impose anything upon any Christian unless it can be
incontrovertibly proven out of the Bible.
The Bible alone, God’s Word, dictates to us the laws and duties
we are to follow. In other words, Jesus Christ alone is able to bind our
consciences through His commands and precepts
found in the Word of God. James
4:12 says, “There is one lawgiver…”
That Lawgiver is Jesus Christ.
Barnes says, “There is but one who has a right to give law. The
reference here is undoubtedly to the Lord Jesus Christ, the great
Legislator of the church. This, too, is a most important and vital
principle, though one that has been most imperfectly understood and
acted on. The tendency everywhere has been to enact other laws than
those appointed by Christ — the laws of synods and councils — and to
claim that Christians are bound to observe them, and should be punished
if they do not. But it is a fundamental principle in Christianity that
no laws are binding on the conscience, but those which Christ has
ordained; and that all attempts to make other laws pertaining to
religion binding on the conscience is a usurpation of his prerogatives.
The church is safe while it adheres to this as a settled principle; it
is not safe when it submits to any legislation in religious matters as
binding the conscience.”
He also says, “All addition to the law of God is evil, Matthew
15:3. All ceremonies in
religion which are not authorized by the New Testament are wrong. Man
has no right to ordain rites to bind the conscience where God has
commanded none, Colossians 2:23. People
come the nearest to that which is right when they live nearest to just
what God has commanded in the Bible.”
This seems to be quite simple, but sometimes it can become very
confusing to new Christians because they have an inadequate
understanding to a systematic approach to the Bible. They do not have all their facts, and simply trust the word
of a friend or minister instead of taking the needful time to study and
understand what a given topic may comprehend.
In such instances, their consciences may be bound to things that
are unneedful. Such was the
case in Colossae and in Rome.
In dealing with weaker brethren, Paul, in both the letters to the
Colossians and the Romans, dealt with those who were weak in the faith
and their desire to keep more of the law, and bind their consciences to
actions surrounding keeping the law, in order to prove they were true
Christians. Let me first
quote Romans at length: Romans 14:1-23, “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. 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. Who are you to judge another's 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 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; and 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; and he who does not
eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us
lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to
the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live
or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and
lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 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. For
it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall
bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of
us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one
another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block
or a cause to fall in our brother's way. I know and am convinced
by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to
him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no
longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom
Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for
the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and
peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these
things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us
pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which
one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of
food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the
man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor
drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is
offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself
before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he
approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not
eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.”
In this passage we have a very
interesting problem. Weak
Jewish Christians in the church at Rome believed that by keeping certain
aspects of the ceremonial law, they assured their own salvation, i.e.
dietary laws (even some that were not stated in the law at all – like
being vegetarians) certain festivals and days held in regard by the
nation state of Israel when it was theocratic.
They demonstrated they were keeping in step with patriotism
(something left over from the Maccabaean Revolt), that they were
externally pure by ritual, and completely devoted to God and His people.
Not that by doing such things were they justified – this
never enters into the conversation.
God accepts these brethren, as Paul states, but simply ignorant
of the fuller reality of life by faith in Christ.
The Pauline exhortation was social, surrounding the need to judge
correctly, or rather, allow Christ to judge at the last day, instead of
judging by external matters now – something we all have a habit
of doing. These weak
brothers criticized those who did not do the same rituals as they did
and looked down on other enlightened Jewish Christians and Gentile
converts (those Paul recognizes as strong).
These weaker brothers were not lost, but simply misinformed and
ignorant about the complete body of doctrine that the stronger had
accepted. Yet (and this is
most amazing) either group (strong or weak) was not to judge one
another, for God had accepted them both.
Their consciences were both bound by their personal understanding
and this called for love, not judgment.
Sandley says, ““weakness
in faith” means an inadequate grasp of the great principle of
salvation by faith in Christ; the consequence of which will be an
anxious desire to make this salvation more certain by the scrupulous
fulfillment of formal rules.”
Douglas Moo comments, “The weak
were mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain kinds of food
and observed certain days out of continuing loyalty to the Mosaic
ceremonial law. (Scholarship agrees: Calvin, Wilckens, Cranfield, Dunn,
Segal, Tomson, Watson, Bartsch.) In
verse 2, “eats only vegetables” – they decided to avoid eating
meat altogether out of a concern to maintain Old Testament laws of
purity in a pagan context where “kosher” meat was not easily
obtained.”
Conscience then dictates the manner of eating here, not the
Bible. There were no
biblical directives one way or another pertaining to being a vegetarian
if one so desired. That was
up to the personal conscience and not the minister of the Gospel or a
friend to dictate. Gordon
makes the point well, “If there is no distinction between what is
lawful for an individual and what is lawful for the church to require of
everyone, then Paul’s discussions in 1 Corinthians 7–9 and Romans 14
make no sense. Such texts presuppose, and in fact positively teach, that
there are things an individual may freely do which cannot be required of
others.”
These
weaker Christians, though they have a conscience bound by their own
convictions, are still acknowledged to be “weaker.”
Black says, “Both 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 refer to the
weak in the church who lack the full knowledge of faith, expressed in
ascetic and legalistic behavior. While Paul’s sympathies very clearly
lie with the weak, he admits that they are still immature and need to
grow in knowledge and faith.”
This does not mean they have been excluded by Christ or that they
are lesser Christians – not at all.
It simply means that at the point they were at on non-essential
“virtues” they were weak in their understanding of what Christ had
fully accomplished on their behalf.
They thought they had more to do in order to “prove
themselves” as Christians. These
weaker Christians missed the important concept that the kingdom is not
about “eating and drinking” but fullness of joy in Christ.
Toussaint says, “Several passages are used from Paul’s
epistles to argue for a present form of the kingdom. Romans 14:17 is one
such passage, “… for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking,
but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Ladd states,
“The Word of God does say that the kingdom of God is a present
spiritual reality,” and then he quotes Romans 14:17 to prove his
point. He goes on to say, “Righteousness and peace and joy are fruits
of the Spirit which God bestows now upon those who yield their lives to
the rule of the Spirit.” This interpretation is fortified by the
present tense “is” (εστιν,
“estin”).”
This is the reality of the Kingdom, but some are attempting to
impinge the liberty that the Christian has in Christ by adding extra
things to bind the conscience. Freedom
is lost when this happens. Calvin
says, “But liberty is not only attacked, but entirely overthrown, when
a spiritual law to bind the conscience is imposed upon us.”
As Bushnell also says, "The weak man should be accepted as
the Christian brother he claims to be. One should not judge the thoughts
which underlie his conduct. This is for God alone to do.”
Harrison
also makes a noteworthy comment in explaining the reaction of the
stronger to the weaker brother. He
says, “Another, weak in his faith, confines his diet to vegetables. No
reason is advanced for this self-limitation. It could have been due to
ascetic zeal. Some modern vegetarians believe they are healthier for not
eating meat. Others have scruples about eating anything that has been
consciously alive (perhaps unaware of research tending to establish that
plants also have sensation). But the motive is a personal matter, and
for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned
with specific practice and the reaction of the strong to this practice.
The omnivorous man is apt to "look down" on the weak brother,
an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak brother
may retaliate by condemning the one who has no inhibitions about his
food. If so, the latter needs to reflect on
the fact that God has accepted (same word as in v. 1) this man (v. 3).
In
summarizing the tensions here and applying them to our own life as a
result of this passage, Calvin brilliantly says of the weak Christians,
“That they were imbued with these notions, was an evidence of
their weakness; they would have thought otherwise, had they possessed a
certain and a clear knowledge of Christian liberty. But in abstaining
from what they thought to be unlawful, they evidenced piety, as it would
have been a proof of presumption and contempt, had they done anything
contrary to the dictates of conscience. Here then the Apostle applies
the best rule, when he bids every one to be fully assured as to his own
mind; by which he intimates that there ought to be in Christians such a
care for obedience, that they do nothing, except what they think, or
rather feel assured, is pleasing to God. And this ought to be thoroughly
borne in mind, that it is the first principle of a right conduct, that
men should be dependent on the will of God, and never allow themselves
to move even a finger, while the mind is doubtful and vacillating;
for it cannot be otherwise, but that rashness will soon pass over into
obstinacy when we dare to proceed further than what we are persuaded is
lawful for us. If any object and say, that infirmity is ever perplexing,
and that hence such certainty as Paul requires cannot exist in the weak:
to this the plain answer is, — That such are to be pardoned, if they
keep themselves within their own limits. For Paul’s purpose was none
other than to restrain undue liberty, by which it happens, that many
thrust themselves, as it were, at random, into matters which are
doubtful and undetermined. Hence Paul requires this to be adopted, —
that the will of God is to preside over all our actions.”
This should be something all Christians meditate upon frequently.
After having briefly looked at
the Romans passage, I would like to turn our attention to a similar
problem at Colossae. I do
not desire to give an in-depth analysis of this passage, but simply
state the obvious. Colossians
2:16-17 states, “So let no
one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon
or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is
of Christ.” We know, as
with Romans, that this has nothing to do with the moral law (the Ten
Commandments) which is binding on all men for all time.
In verse 16 we find that there was an essentially Jewish
faction in Colossae who were deeply critical of Gentile Christian
failure to observe the Jewish food laws. The Christian Gentiles must have wholly thought of themselves
as saved Christians due to the criticism of the Jewish faction.
Christian Jews would not live in mutual respect for these
Gentiles unless they did keep these dietary laws.
Paul is affirming to Gentiles that they are not to be judged in
these matters (“you know who they are” is the Greek
tis (tis)
of the phrase). The
three terms Paul uses are “imprecise” and could be a reference to a
variety of “days” celebrated. Eorth
(eortay) “Festival” is unspecific; such festivals or feasts
are common in every society. The
term is not used anywhere in the New Testament to refer to a
“Jewish” feast. The
second term, “neomania” (neomhnia)
is equally unclear. Most
ancient societies celebrated “new moons.”
However, the third word “sabbath” puts this beyond doubt.
Covenant belonging was distinct between Gentiles and Jews.
To keep various ceremonial sabbaths was part of the Jewish
identity covenant. It
refers not to the days, but the covenant status of the Jews as an identifier.
The Jews in Colossae, then, were not taking the Gentiles
seriously since they were disregarding “covenant” status (an already
misinformed idea in the Jewish mindset).
In
verse 17 we find the response Paul gives to this Jewish ranting; it is quick
and brief. Such practices are “shadows of the things to come, but
the reality is with Christ.” “Things to come” is a participle
pointing to the age to come; i.e. the reality surrounding Jesus Christ
and His kingdom’s consummation. The
definite article here adds a great amount of weight to the argument –
“of Christ, or belongs to Christ.”
Christ is the fulfillment of the Jewish eschatological
hope. Christ
embodies the heavenly reality that lies beyond and sustains the
perceptible cosmos. But also, Christ is the substance to the shadows of
Jewish food laws and feasts; he is the reality that casts its shadow
back in time; they are inferior provisional copies whose inadequacy
is now evident in the light of the real.
The claim is bold and should be noted, only makes sense as a
response to and fulfillment of Jewish eschatological expectation.
The word “soma” or body, (soma) is used throughout the
epistle as a play on words; a play on the body (1:18, 2:10 – “head
of every rule and authority.”) As
Christ embodies the ultimate reality, the divine wisdom and rationality
which holds the cosmos together, so he is the reality reflected imperfectly
in the rules and festivals by which Jewish social life and times were
structured. The church
should embody the same reality – not the shadows.
Thus, Colossae is to move forward not back into that which is
fulfilled and realized in the eschatological Christ.
The
point in Colossians 2:16-17 is the same as Romans: the personal
conviction of extra-biblical non-essentials is not binding on Christian
Liberty. Each should, by
his own conviction partake or not partake of the food.
Neither the weak nor strong, however, should judge one another.
In
looking at these two passages, we see that Christian liberty and the
binding of our consciences has direct implications on our actions and
the manner in which we understand the Word.
Non-essentials are not binding, and ultimately detract from the
full reality one has in freedom with Christ.
But there is no cause for the stronger brothers in a given
church, even a pastor, to dominate the Christian’s thinking with
something that would hinder their conscience if it is not directly
spoken about in the Word of God. Otherwise,
Christians become dictators, and ministers could take up the role of
popery very easily.
Now
that we have some foundation in the Word of God for understanding the
role of conscience, we should be very clear on the manner in which a
conscience can be bound. Simply,
the conscience can only be bound to action before Jesus Christ by truths
in the Bible. I think it would be helpful to look at what the Westminster
Confession of Faith outlines as an acceptable doctrine of Christian
Liberty. It summarizes the
doctrine in a few paragraphs. Here
is the first, “The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers
under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the
condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being
delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion
of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of
the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to
God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but
a childlike love and willing mind. All which were common also to
believers under the law. But, under the new testament, the liberty of
Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the
ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected; and in greater
boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications
of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily
partake of.”
What is expressly mentioned here is the freedom we have from the
Law Covenant to work out our own salvation – our sanctification in
particular - something we can never do on our own. Rather, we are free in the power of Christ to serve Him and
love Him forever. We have
access to Him, and are freed from the acts of the ceremonial law (like
the dietary laws in Romans 14 and Colossians 2).
In
the next paragraph, the WCF says, “God alone is Lord of the
conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of
men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if
matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to
obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of
conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and
blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason
also.” This is a key paragraph for our own study.
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He alone has the
right to command anything of it to be believed.
Calvin is in agreement with this notion as stated in his Institutes.
“Since by means of this privilege of liberty which we have
described, believers have derived authority from Christ not to entangle
themselves by the observance of things in which he wished them to be
free, we conclude that their consciences are exempted from all human
authority.” It is a waste
of time for the Christian to consider being bound by anything other than
the Word. If a pastor or
friend cannot turn to a passage to glean a command or precept from it
for your benefit, you have no biblical warrant to believe them, even if
they believe it is good and wise advice.
1 Corinthians 10:29 says, “Conscience,"
I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged
by another man's conscience?” Paul’s
rhetoric is pointing to the fact that his conscience should not be bound
by another’s opinion, but by the Word.
A. A. Hodge says about this paragraph, “God alone is the Lord
of human conscience, which is responsible only to his authority.
God has authoritatively addressed the human conscience only in
his law, the only perfect revelation of which in this world is the
inspired Scriptures. Hence
God himself has set the human conscience free from all obligation to
believe or obey any such doctrines or commandments of men as are either
contrary to or aside from the teachings of that Word.
Hence, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments as
a matter of conscience, is to be guilty of the sin of betraying the
liberty of conscience and its loyalty to its only Lord; and to require
such obedience of others is to be guilty of the sin of usurping the
prerogative of God and attempting to destroy the most precious liberties
of men.”
This is poignant, but he continues with a more explicit
statement, “That it is a great sin, involving at the same time
sacrilege and treason to the human race, for any man or set of men to
arrogate the prerogative of God and to attempt to bind the consciences
of their fellow man by any obligation not certainly imposed by God and
revealed in his Word. At
the same time it is a sin of disloyalty to God, and a violation of our
own nature as moral and rational beings, to yield to any such
imposition, and to accept as a matter truly binding the conscience
anything not authoritatively taught and imposed in the Scriptures.”
An example may suit us. For
those who are familiar with Jonathan Edwards, he wore a wig while
preaching – one of those white judicial sorts, powdered and all.
Solomon Stoddard, his grandfather preached on the need to get rid
of wigs, and that they are unlawful especially to wear while preaching.
Edwards was sitting in the front row while this sermon was given.
It was his custom to wear those wigs.
What did he do the next week?
Did he listen to his grandfather?
Next week, Edwards had on his wig and preached a fine sermon.
If he had given it up, he would have violated his conscience.
Hopefully you did not miss the point here.
Gordon
Clark rightly comments on this section of the WCF saying, “The [21st]
century church in America seems to have fallen into a curious
self-contradiction. The lust for power and control over men and
organizations has produced an almost papal claim to authority on the
part of bureaucratic ecclesiastical officials [he is referring to
pastors]. When the majority speaks (and the officials manipulate the majority)
it is the voice of God. Yet with all this unscriptural claim to
authority, the officials and their obedient servants are horrified at
the thought of censuring or excommunicating a minister who denies the
virgin birth or the resurrection. No doubt such a thought strikes too
close to home. Some years
ago a young man presented himself to a presbytery for ordination. As
he was known to believe that the boards and agencies of that church were
infiltrated with modernism, he was asked whether he would support the
boards and agencies. He replied that he would support them insofar as
they were true to the Bible. This answer did not please presbytery, and
he was asked if he would support the boards regardless of what they did.
When the young man declined to make any such blind promise, the
presbytery refused to ordain him.”
It may be good to make an evaluation about your own church in
this way. This is the road
to legalism. He continues,
“There are also Christian colleges which forbid their students to go
to the movies. If the argument were that the students ought to spend
twenty hours reading Tolstoy’s War and Peace, instead of seeing
it in three, the prohibition might have a certain literary
justification. But I am afraid this regulation did not originate in any
alert English department. Of course, there is a lot of filth in the
movies, and a lot of silly nonsense too. But there are also filthy
books, yet the reading of books is not prohibited. Such is the
inconsistency one falls into when one decides to improve on the Bible.
These people are in general afraid of Christian liberty. They think it
leads to sin. Dominoes is supposed to tempt people to gamble. Of course,
such is not the case. Many families with their children have played
dominoes without giving a thought to gambling. Nor does Christian
liberty lead to sin. The activities objected to are not sins—they are
not forbidden by Scripture. Further, the Confession states plainly that
Christian liberty must not be used as an excuse for sin, for the purpose
of this liberty is "that, being delivered out of the hands of our
enemies (who would glory in our flesh) we might serve the Lord without
fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our
life.”
Let
us become a bit more practical for a moment.
The cults today bind people’s consciences by what they say
because it sounds good to the weak minded who are listening.
When cults have a corner on truth, they lord it over people to
bind their conscience with what they need for manipulative purposes.
One cult leader (Jim Jones) said, “Unless you obey me, you are
not doing the will of “God.” Obedience, though, is not at the hand of the man, but in the
Word of God. For instance,
the role of elder is very important to the church.
Elders are those men who are gifted in exegetical work, and in
pastoral care, to watch over the flock of Christ until Christ returns.
What authority do they have to bind the conscience?
Before you answer, let me ask it with reference to the Apostle
Paul. If the Apostle Paul
says something, or preaches something, on his missionary journeys,
should the hearers simply lay down before him and accept his teaching at
face value? Absolutely
not!! Let me give you an
example of this in Acts 17:11, “These were more fair-minded than those
in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and
searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things
were so.” The Bereans
were born with silver spoons in their mouths.
The word “noble” does not refer to their state after
studying the Bible, but before. They were those educated who had the tools, those of
“nobility”, to properly exegete the Bible, or Old Testament
Scriptures at the time. They
studied to see if what Paul said was true.
They did not accept the apostle’s word at face value, and
neither should any Christian. When the pastor says “you should listen to the Word of God
on such and such a matter,” that is completely acceptable, and it is
the duty of the Christian to check to see if what the pastor said is
true. Hopefully, by their
diligent study they have given you the meaning of the text, or the
principles from the text correctly.
Pastors are fallible, sinful, imperfect men who make mistakes.
Certainly they are respected (not revered or venerated) for their
office. But they are not
perfect, not by a long shot. And
they would be the first to admit that!
So, the Christian’s conscience cannot be bound by a pastor
unless he is faithfully teaching them what God is saying in His word.
Now, if the pastor were to say “You need to obey us because we
are in the position of authority and Christ has put us here,” my
answer to that is a theological term I like to use “hogwash!”
Such statements from pastors are nonsense, to say the
least. Are they wise? Not with that kind of a statement! But generally speaking, are Pastors wise?
Maybe. Hopefully! That all depends on how you define
“wisdom.” Wisdom is the
right application of knowledge. If
pastors are going to apply the knowledge of the Bible correctly, they
will use wisdom, and consequently they will be wise for applying the
Biblical text to a given situation.
If they are not applying the Bible, then what they say is simply
“advice.” It can be
taken or left depending upon your own conscience and how you understand
a given situation. Let me
use an example. 11 years
ago I knew two young people who were Christians for about 4 years. They met, knew they were meant for each other, and desired to
be married in the same day.
They were utterly persuaded that God had placed them together.
They were engaged 3 three weeks later, and married after 6
months. They are still
together today happily married and without the least sign of trouble in
their marriage by way of divorce. They
have an uncommon union, and are wholly devoted to the Gospel and to
Christ, and to one another. They
give all glory to Christ for the success of their marriage.
Now, let us imagine these two young born-again Christians, a week
after they met, received counsel by 30 friends and one pastor.
Let us say these 30 friends asked “Are you both out of your
mind?” Suffice it to say,
the friends disapproved of their “lack of wisdom” in the matter.
Then, in counseling with a pastor, the pastor said they should
not get married. It is
simply too soon. I mean,
from the story, even you, the reader, are aghast at the short length of
time these “unwise” Christians took to become engage, or even think
about being engaged! They
met one week ago! However,
we must not let our emotions overrule our good judgment.
Now, what is binding on their conscience?
Both the friends and the pastor said they should not be married.
Is this a biblical command?
Not at all. A case
could even be made from using 1 Cor. 7:9 against their advice, “but if
they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to
marry than to burn with passion.”
The two that just met who have fallen madly in “love” could
be hot with passion, chaste, but burning.
What do they do? Paul
says marry. The Bible says
marry. The friends and
pastor say, “Don’t do it!” Where
does Christian conscience lie? Well,
besides making that argument, let’s simply stick with conscience.
The two are sitting before the pastor.
The young man take sup his role as the representative on behalf
of himself and his girl. Here
is their conversation:
Pastor:
You cannot be serious. How
could you want to marry so quickly?
Young
Man: Do you believe God
could have providentially put us together?
P:
Well, possibly. But equally true, God could simply be testing your wisdom.
YM:
How do you mean?
P:
You should be wise in your actions before God. Proverbs talks about wisdom over and over.
It is an important theme in the Bible.
YM:
How do you know that our being married is not wise?
P:
It is just too fast.
YM:
Where does the Bible say it is too fast?
P:
Well, there is no Scripture to say it is to fast or too slow.
It is simply wise to wait until you know one another better.
YM:
Says who?
P:
Well, let me ask you, what did your friends say?
YM:
They said we are crazy.
P:
What do I say?
YM:
You also think we are crazy, but did not really use those words.
You said we should wait until we know one another better,
whatever “better” means.
P:
So should you?
YM:
No.
P:
Why not?!
YM:
Because there is nothing in the Bible to bind my conscience to this one
way or the other. It certainly may be that I should wait, but I do not think
so. We do not think so.
We have spent night and day together for the last week talking on
the phone. That is more
time than I spend with good friends in six months. I know her well and
she knows me well. I have
listened to the counsel of 30 friends and your counsel as well, our
pastor. But none of you
have given us anything but “good” advice.
And might I ask, what makes advice “good” or “bad”?
P:
Well, advice is a tricky thing.
Since we do not have any Scriptures to really rest on, we simply
have life experience.
YM:
Ok, how “good” is your life experience in this matter?
What does life experience tell you?
P:
I have seen people married quickly that both failed and worked.
YM:
What about those who dated or courted for a long time, did they all work
out?
P:
No, the same went for them; some are married some are not.
YM:
Why then is my life experience bad and your good?
P:
Let me give you an example of the way I went about finding my wife.
YM:
OK.
P:
In looking for a wife, I watched my “to be” wife from afar off in
church for about 1 year. I wanted to see her interaction with people, with God, etc.
in the congregation. Then,
after I knew her walk as a Christian, and whether she would be a good
wife, I asked her to marry me, and so she did.
YM:
Well, we both know we are Christians, and our friends attest to that. So
we have that going for us. But
let me ask you, how did you know your current wife would be a good wife
by simply watching her – was she someone else’s wife first?
P:
Oh no, not at all.
YM:
Well then, if she had not been anyone’s wife, how did you know
she would be a good wife until you were married and found out by
experience?
P:
She knew the Bible on what being a wife is all about.
YM:
Well, if my fiancé knows, and I know, the roles of husband and wife
biblically stated, what does the time difference matter?
P:
It matters. And I, as your pastor, am against it.
YM:
I am not sure what you mean.
P:
I am the authority in this church, one placed here by Christ.
You should listen to my advice and take it, and call this off for
a while.
YM:
I must ask, where in the Bible does it say that your advice should be
heeded without the Word of God? Isn’t
that a violation of Sola Scriptura?
That seems cultic to me. It
seems we are still resting on “advice” and our own views on life
experience. I even know of
a couple of Bible passages where people had not even met, and the next
day they were married – and that’s rushing it for us!
P:
I suppose you would be meaning Isaac and Rebecca, for one.
YM:
Yes, that would be one of them. They
were married the next day and Isaac is said to have gone in and “loved
her.” I am not saying I
want to be married tomorrow, but by what measuring stick will we judge
the allotted amount of time?
P:
Well, there really is no formal measuring stick, but we want to be wise
in our judgment and that means we should gather enough knowledge to be
sure in our conscience that we are doing what is good and acceptable
before God.
YM:
You have not answered the question.
Is there a time limit that is acceptable?
P:
It is different for everyone.
YM:
OK, then, what if men have different opinions about our conclusions that
we have drawn? Should we follow our consciences or men’s advice?
P:
You should follow your conscience as it is bound by the Word of God.
Even if men differ.
YM:
Then, pastor, thank you so much for your time.
You have helped greatly. We
will keep our plans the same, and marry in six months.
Some of you reading this may not like that very much (especially
some pastors who counsel often). Truly,
some young couples have made bad choices in marriage.
But at the same time, this young couple made a choice that has
lasted them 11 years, going strong.
Did they make an imprudent decision?
In keeping in step with the pastors good advice, the
answer is no; no matter what others believe, they are bound wither by
conscience or the Word of God dictating conscience.
But no one reading this could possibly say that their decision
was against or contrary to the Word of God.
Wisdom, in this instance, is relative to what the couple knew and
understood about marriage, about themselves, about prudence, and the
like. They have more of a
warrant to be married by Biblical command and example, than by waiting.
That is a hard pill for many to swallow, but I think this
illustration really hits home to press the point that only the Word of
God can bind the conscience and laws made by men, or authority pressed
on men is illegitimately given if not captivated by Christ’s commands.
Calvin says, “we do not simply say, that everything
which men have delivered to us ought to be rejected; but we deny that we
ought to obey the laws of men, when they bind the conscience without any
necessity.”
John Gill says, “Hence nothing can
bind the conscience but the law and will of God; it is God’s
vicegerent, acts for and under him, and receives its authority and
instructions from him, and is accountable to him, and to no other; it is
a debtor to him, and owes obedience to his will; it is constrained by
it, laid under a necessity to observe it, and cannot do otherwise: let
men say what they will to the contrary, or be clothed with what
authority they may, parents, masters, magistrates, have no power over
children, servants, and subjects to oblige them to what is contrary to
the dictates of conscience, according to the will of God; no laws of men
are binding on conscience, which are not according to, or are contrary
to the law and will of God; “We
ought to obey God, rather than men”, is the determination of the
apostles of Christ, Acts 4:19,20 5:29.”
Why are men or ministers not
allowed to bind the conscience of a Christian without the Word?
George Downname, in a book devoted to Christian Liberty, say
this, “Now that the laws of
men do not bind the conscience, it may further appear by these reasons:
first, because our freedom from the laws judicial and ceremonial, which
in the Scriptures is extolled for so great a benefit, if we should in
like manner be bound to the ecclesiastical and civil laws of men.
Again, if they did bind the conscience, there would be no
difference between God’s laws and man’s laws (in respect of outward
actions) and the one sort would require simple obedience as well as the
other, yea unlawful commandments would also bind the conscience…to the
laws of men we are not bound…now the laws of men easily appeareth with
this distinction: for either they command such things as God forbiddeth,
and forbid such things as he commandeth…or lastly, they command such
things that God hath not forbidden, and forbid such things as God hath
not commanded.”
If we were simply to grasp this point, Christian Liberty would
ring for every believer as loudly as the Liberty Bell.
Ministers are to humbly serve, not lord over the flock.
Jonathan Edwards says, “It is to be wondered at, that such a
church, at this time of day, after the cause of liberty in matters of
conscience has been so abundantly defended’ should arrogate to herself
such a kind of authority over the consciences of both ministers and
people, and use it in such a manner, by such severity, to establish
that, which is not only contrary to the liberty of Christians, wherewith
Christ has made them free; but so directly contrary to her own professed
principles, acts, and resolutions, entered on public record.”
John Gerstner says about Edwards view on this, “The
question of ecclesiastical organization and authority interested Edwards
from his youth. In a number
of early Miscellanies he wrestled with this theme.
In one of the very first, written probably before he was twenty,
Edwards says: Ministers are not properly “governors” but only
“leaders.” They do not
make laws. If they made
laws they would be dethroning Christ.”
He goes on to say, “ministers only administer the laws of
Christ and cannot bind the conscience itself.”
How clear may this be? Even
Charles Hodge clearly says, “There is a strong tendency
in men to treat, as matters of conscience, things which God has never
enjoined. Wherever this disposition has been indulged or submitted to,
it has resulted in bringing one class of men under the most degrading
bondage to another; and in the still more serious evil of leading them
to disregard the authority of |
