The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi Steve,

Just a practical issue: how do you decide whether a wrong teaching or practice should be corrected or whether it can be overlooked? Or to re-phrase the question, when do we forsake our freedom/liberty for the sake of a weaker brother versus taking a stand for the truth? How much consideration should we give to another person's conscience, even if they are theologically wrong?

I am thinking of Paul when he delivered strong words against circumcision, but yet at another time he appears to pander to the Jews by having Timothy circumcised. Or he is gracious enough to say he would not eat meat if it stumbles a weaker brother (1 Cor 8:13) but yet he has strong words against those who would forbid eating certain foods (1 Tim 4:3).

I wonder if Timothy ever said: " Gee, thanks a lot, Paul."

TK

Benjamin Ho wrote:Hi Steve,

Just a practical issue: how do you decide whether a wrong teaching or practice should be corrected or whether it can be overlooked? Or to re-phrase the question, when do we forsake our freedom/liberty for the sake of a weaker brother versus taking a stand for the truth? How much consideration should we give to another person's conscience, even if they are theologically wrong?

I am thinking of Paul when he delivered strong words against circumcision, but yet at another time he appears to pander to the Jews by having Timothy circumcised. Or he is gracious enough to say he would not eat meat if it stumbles a weaker brother (1 Cor 8:13) but yet he has strong words against those who would forbid eating certain foods (1 Tim 4:3).

It seems to me that Timothy's circumcision falls under the principle in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 regarding reaching unbelievers with the Gospel.

19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

The context of 1 Timothy 4:1-4 seems to be pointed at individuals who change the Gospel, requiring singleness and abstinence from certain foods. I don't think he's addressing fellow believers who follow the true Gospel, while having a personal conviction in a secondary mattter.

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

However, your question is a good one, and my my best answer is that in each situation like the ones described in Romans 14,15, one must follow the leading of the Spirit for that occasion. One extreme would be to have no sensitivity to other's consciences and the other extreme would be to allow someone personal conviction to supercede Christ and your own conscience. My thought is to be somewhere in the middle. If we are led by the Spirit, He will tell us when to "conform" or when to stand our ground.

Its been a while since you posted this thread. Did you come to a conclusion? If so, please share.

Dave

Steve Gregg's answer

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... ght=#13929