Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 5
May 16, 2021
Humble, Texas
(Download Audio)
(121)
Thesis: "Destroying" one's brother consists of getting that brother to "reckon" that "the Love of The God" is not actually "Truth" and that The God is not fundamentally concerned with a relationship that is rooted in walking with an uncompromised conscience.
Introduction: In our last two studies we gave some thought to the reality that what one "thinks" ("reckons") is critical to one's experience of the "Life" of God, and what "hurts" a brother is actually putting him in the position of having to violate what he "thinks" in order to retain your good opinion of him. In this scenario, the issue is not exercising one's freedoms in Christ, per se; it is that exercise in a
specific setting wherein one who values your opinion of him and knows that you will think he is "diseased in The Faith" if he does not follow your example. At root is the reality that those "diseased in The Faith" depend heavily upon the good opinions of others for their enjoyment of "life" and, thus, will be influenced by their actions to determine what they will do in that setting. This seems to be very clear from
1 Corinthians 10:23-29: this "setting" is
very specific and means that it is not necessary to adhere to another man's conscience except when it is obvious that not doing that would send the wrong message.
- I. The Nature Of The Wrong Message.
- A. It is a action-denial of the true "Love" that God has for us.
- 1. When Paul says that we are not "walking according to the standard of Love" if we "hurt" a brother, he is saying more than simply that we are not "walking according to the standard of Love".
- a. Fact One: those "diseased in The Faith" already have serious problems with the question of their "acceptance" by God.
- 1) The nature of the "disease" is that "acceptance" is "reckoned" to be rooted in our own behavior.
- a) People who think that what we eat matters to God, in terms of His acceptance of them, are already "into" "acceptance by personal performance".
- b) People who think that observing memorial days matters to God, in terms of His acceptance of them, are already rooted in the "theology" of "acceptance by personal performance".
- 2) This "disease" is contrary to the "health" that understanding "The Faith" brings.
- a) The very essence of the Gospel is that people are accepted by God on the basis of the behavior of Christ in deliberate contrast to "one's own behavior".
- b) When one "believes" that he/she is accepted by God on the basis of the behavior of Christ, his/her behavior choices become matters of "conscience toward God" as an expression of "giving thanks to God".
- b. Fact Two: when a person who has a reputation for understanding "The Faith" contradicts the principle of "acceptance based upon the behavior of Christ" by making "acceptance" by him/her to be a willingness to conform to his/her "thinking", he/she is actively denying the truth of "The Love of The God" by creating the "pressure" to "act like me if you wish to be accepted by me".
- 1) For the "diseased in The Faith", this is deadly because this behavior by a "believer in the Love of God" is already too big of an issue for the "diseased" to be able to handle.
- a) A person who understands and believes in The Faith, has no problem with being accepted or rejected by other human beings.
- b) But the person who does not understand and believe in The Faith, has a huge problem because for that person "acceptance by men" is the critical issue for faith in the acceptance by God.
- 2) This means that the one seen as "understanding The Faith" is not only not "walking according to the standard of Love" when he/she makes "acceptance" a matter of "agreeing with me and following my example", he/she is declaring that the Love of The God is only "real" for those who perform correctly.
- 2. This "action-denial" goes all the way to the roots of the "Why?" of the death of Christ.
- a. Paul insists that it is the one for whom Christ died that is being "destroyed" when a recognized "strong believer" chooses to satisfy his/her "freedom" to eat anything he/she wishes at the expense of his/her fellow believer's "thinking".
- b. This "destruction" is a contradiction of the death of Christ.
- 1) Christ did not exalt His own "freedoms" at the expense of ignorant and needy human beings.
- 2) Instead, Christ submitted to the death of the Cross as a testament to His own, and His Father's, "Love".
- a) This was an "action-affirmation" of the true Love of The God.
- b) This "action-affirmation" was the "standard" of "The Love" by which He walked.
- c. The fact is that the death of Christ was two things simultaneously.
- 1) First, it was an overt demonstration of the degree to which God "loves".
- 2) Second, it was the foundation of the truth of God's "acceptance" of those whose "faith" is in the behavior of Christ and not their own.
- B. It is a "destroyer" of those who confidence in their acceptance by God is tenuous.
- 1. The bottom line in God's "acceptance" is in how we line up with what we think: when we fail to operate by what we "reckon", our consciences are violated.
- 2. When our consciences are violated, there is no "confidence" in God.
- 3. Where there is no "confidence in God", there is no relationship with God.
- II. Paul's Consequent Insistence.
- A. Stop "grieving" the brother simply to be able to eat what is pleasurable.
- B. Stop "destroying" the brother by undercutting his confidence in God.
