We both are the Lord’s and, as such, should live to the glory of Christ. Once again, notice how Paul makes his emphasis on both groups. The strong and the weak both live under Christ and are responsible to Christ. Regardless then of which category you belong, you are responsible for your own decisions before God as an in-Christ person living under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

To say that we need to demonstrate grace toward those around us seems like a gross understatement. The world around us desperately needs grace extended to them. They need to know about God’s grace, God’s refuge, and God’s love. Further, the church needs it in equal measure. At times, Christians are no more kinder, no more thoughtful, or no more compassionate than many in the world. However, there should be no greater grace extended toward each other than in both the family of God and the biological family unit. These two places should exude the grace of God from each other to each other. Instead, what we sometimes find is judgement, impatience, and insensitivity. Yet if we hope to do this God’s way, we need to manifest outward grace with inward humility; these two provide a great combination of experiencing God’s grace in your life and passing it on to others as well.
Here is where we begin:
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions (Romans 14:1).
Welcome the Weak, but do not Quarrel over Opinions
The idea of welcoming the weak is our key to grace. If you happen to be the strong, then you welcome – or show grace toward – the weak. The Apostle Paul is very clear here. Will the weaker person have the maturity of the strong? No. In absence of the spiritual maturity of the strong, the temptation for the stronger person will be twofold. First, there is potential for the strong to judge the weak. Second, in hope of helping the weaker person, the strong will desire to share opinions with the weak. The Apostle Paul continues.
Here are Two Early Church Examples: Food and Holy Days
The Apostle provides us two different examples. However, upon further examination, we see that although the examples are different, the principles are the same. Notice how they parallel each other.
The Subject of Division: Food (vv. 2-4) and Holy Days (vv. 5-6)
Food: One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
Holy Days: One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. 
The Principle: Pay attention to your own heart before God, not the other person’s
Food: Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats,…
Holy Days: Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
The Motivation: The issue is a matter between the person and God
Food: …for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Holy Days: The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
In today’s culture, there are many more than just the two examples that Paul mentions. Today, one could add various forms of entertainment, tattoos, alcohol, tobacco, music, dress, sports, politics, and more. These principles apply in all of these areas as well.
Read More
Related Posts:

MacArthur redefines fiducia by turning the volitional component of justifying faith into something other than child like receiving and resting in Christ for salvation. For MacArthur fiducia is not the disposition of trust in Christ (or to believe into Christ) but rather the work of bringing our righteous to Christ in deeds of forsaking, commitment and surrender.

In this post I addressed the aberrant view that justifying faith is assent alone apart from trusting in Christ. Therein I made a passing reference to another extreme view of faith – the “Lordship Salvation” gospel whose advocates not only define justifying faith without reference to the Reformed view of trust, but also add forsaking oneself, commitment of life and surrender to justifying faith, which in turn eclipses the gospel by confusing how one might appropriate Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel.
It is notable that John MacArthur, the most significant proponent of this view, does not subscribe to historical Reformed theology. In that respect, MacArthur is unchecked with respect to confessional theology in the Reformed tradition. Aside from having a baptistic ecclesiology and a dispensational view of the covenants, MacArthur has gotten the doctrines of justification and justifying faith wrong. I address those errors here.
Saving Faith According to John MacArthur:
Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith. (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 142)
By “saving faith” MacArthur means justifying faith. We may infer this because he is speaking of the faith that is tied to conversion. Accordingly, sanctifying or persevering faith is not in view. What is also noteworthy is MacArthur cites “forsaking oneself” as an essential element of justifying faith, which is radically different than how the Reformed tradition defines justifying faith:
Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. Westminster Larger Catechism, #72 What is justifying faith?
The most significant Confession in the history of the Protestant tradition defines the faith that justifies differently than MacArthur. At the heart of justifying faith is receiving and resting upon Christ, which is absent in MacArthur’s ordo salutis. Worse more, to add forsaking one’s life to the simplicity of faith is another gospel because it adds works to justifying faith. But not only does MacArthur add forsaking one’s life to faith, he also asserts that personal commitment is essential to justifying faith.
Commitment is the disputed element of faith around which the lordship controversy swirls. No-lordship theology denies that believing in Christ involves any element of personal commitment to Him. (Faith Works, The Gospel According To The Apostles, p. 43-44)
MacArthur contends that justifying faith, the faith that appropriates the benefits of Christ, entails “forsaking oneself” and “commitment.” It is not MacArthur but the Westminster Shorter Catechism that has it right when it states:
Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, he is offered in the gospel.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, #86 What is faith in Jesus Christ?)
It escapes MacArthur that personal commitment and forsaking one’s life are works of righteousness, which if done in faith are fruits of sanctification and not elements (or principal acts) of justifying faith. MacArthur seems to miss that justifying faith is merely an instrument by which the unrighteous lay hold of Christ’s righteousness. (Westminster Shorter Catechism #73)
Read More
Related Posts:

The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God. 

When I heard of the statute of the Satanic idol being destroyed at the Iowa State Capitol Building, I thought of Charlie Daniels’ famous hit “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.”  In this song the Devil challenged the young man Johnny to a fiddle-playing contest. The prize for Johnny was a golden fiddle if he won, and the prize for the Devil was the soul of Johnny if he won.  Johnny won. I think a new song might be appropriately written by Charlie now, and as a man who lives in the South, I would call it “The Devil Went Up to Iowa.”
This statute has been demolished by a man from Mississippi. The head has been cut off, and only part of the statute remains on site.
Although I must confess that there was a joyful response in me as I visioned the ram’s head on the floor, yet, as a Reformed Christian I cannot support vandalism.  Men, even men like Michael Cassidy, who is a Christian and a former Navy fighter pilot, do not have the right to destroy public property.  You know—such an attitude toward the legitimacy of vandalism could lead to vigilante riots and the destruction of millions of dollars of property in cities like Minneapolis where the police are told to stand down while the city burns to the ground. Or it could lead to robbing jewelry stores in San Francisco in broad daylight and the only criminal is the owner of the store.  I am glad I live in a country where vandalism and vigilantism are not tolerated.
The real issue on trial here was not the statue of a pagan idol by the name of Baphomet in a public place set up by the organization called the Satan Temple of Iowa with the approval of the Iowa State Legislature.  The real issue here is the concept of free speech.  Does it violate free speech by restricting objectional material from public display?  One Iowan representative, who is a follower of Christ, and also an ordained minister, spoke approvingly of this public display as protecting the right of civil liberties guaranteed in the United States Constitution.  It is a matter of the First Amendment, he said.
Reactions in the Reformed world vary, as you might expect. The most common response is simply to grimace and ignore it.  “I do not like it, but idolatry in worship at my local church is a much bigger concern than an ugly statute of Satan in a State Capitol.”
So, what about the free-speech argument?  If we curtail free speech, are we curtailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution?  If we are, then this might lead to worse things.  It could even lead to being fired from work if you speak the wrong pronoun preferred by a transgender.  It could lead to a world-renown medical scientist being punished for publicly questioning the validity of the covid vaccine.  Or, likewise, it could lead to a presidential candidate being cancelled from social media for posting what high-tech corporate leaders call disinformation. Paraphrasing A. J. Liebling, the freedom of the press is only free to those who own one.  Another result of restricting the freedom of speech might be stamping out the call by young college students at Harvard University for the genocide of the Jews from the River to the Sea. I hope you see the potential danger of restricting free speech.
Of course, I am being a little facetious in this article.  Foolishness needs to be exposed at times. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Prov. 26:5).”  When the statute of Robert E. Lee comes down and the statue of Satan goes up, it all seems a little controverted to me.
However, I think the confusion can be cleared up if we consider one thing. The issue in Iowa is not free speech but rather a matter of who sets the limits of free speech.  All free speech is limited.  Free speech is not absolute. You will get in trouble if you shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.
When America was a Chistian nation, it was assumed that the public display of Satanic symbols was outside the boundaries of free speech.  The First Amendment was created to protect the Christian Faith by the disapprobation of a national church in exchange for the approval of existing Christian denominations within the various States.
The First Amendment protected the Christian Faith by guaranteeing the freedom of Christian men to live with a conscience bound only by the Word of God. Yea for the Baptists!  Early America chose the Ten Commandments as its foundation for civil laws and for liberty. Apart from the Christian Faith, the United States Constitution becomes a purely secular document, and as such it is now being used to crush the basic tenets of Christian morality in the public square. Old-school Americans cannot seem to get beyond the sacredness of the First Amendment, even when it is being used as a weapon against them.
As America has drifted from a Christian Nation to a Polytheistic Empire (see A Polytheistic Empire – A New Experiment About to Fail?) the limits on free speech have changed.  New limits have been created and the old ones have been cast away.  That is what makes the conversation about the First Amendment so confusing and contradictory.  We highly value it, but for Christians it is no longer working for us.
The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God.
Presbyterians are bound by such documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, but what I have found is that we, too, tend to be confused.  For example, the Larger Catechism Question #108 asks, “What are the duties in the second commandment?” The answer given, even for those in the special calling of civic leadership, is as follows. The duties are “disapproving, detesting, and opposing all false worship, and according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry.” Of course, this does not legitimize vandalism, but it does command men to act where they legally have a right to do so in accordance with the commandments of God, even in the sphere of civil government.  It includes preaching about it too, something the modern church needs to do.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: