“But he who doubts is
condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not
from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
It was a custom among the
idolatrous heathen to offer the bodies of slain beasts in sacrifice. A portion of every beast that was offered
belonged to the priest. The priests
used to send their portion to the market to sell, and it was sold in the market
place like any other meat. The
Christian Jews that were scattered everywhere were very particular as to what
meats they ate because they did not want to be in danger of violating the
Mosaic Law; and so they raised doubts and created disputes and difficulties
among the churches. This was one of the
subjects that agitated and divided the church of Corinth, until they finally
wrote to the apostle Paul for direction.
A part of the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written as a reply to
such questions. It seems there were
some who carried their scruples so far that they felt that is was wrong to eat
any meat at all, because every time they went to the market, they were
continually in danger of unknowingly buying meat that was offered to
idols. Others thought that it made no
difference. They had a right to eat
meat, and they would buy meat in the market as they found it, and were not
bothered by whether or not that meat was offered to idols. To quell the dispute, they wrote to Paul,
and in the 8th chapter, he takes up the subject and discusses it in full.
“Now concerning things
offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet
as he ought to know. But if anyone
loves God, this one is known by Him.
Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that
an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods,
whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for
us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we
live. However, there is not in everyone
that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a
thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” (I Cor 8:1-7) In other words, because they regard it as meat offered to an
idol, they are really practicing idolatry.
However, the eating of meat, all by itself, is a matter of total
indifference.
“But food does not commend us to God; for neither
if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. But beware lest somehow this liberty of
yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's
temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those
things offered to idols? And because of
your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (I Cor 8:8-11)
Now, they might have enough knowledge to know that
an idol is nothing (see Is 44:10-19), and that an idol can’t physically change
the meat. Yet if they should be seen
eating meat that was known to have been offered to an idol, those who were weak
might be emboldened by it to eat the sacrifices as such, or as an act of
worship to the idol, supposing all the time that they were following the
example of their more enlightened brethren.
“But when you thus sin against the brethren, and
wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again
eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
(I Cor 8:12-13) This is Paul’s
unselfish conclusion, that he would rather forego the use of flesh altogether
than be the occasion of drawing a weak brother away into idolatry. For, in fact, to sin so against a weak
brother is to sin against Christ.
In writing to the Romans,
he takes up the same subject. The same
dispute had existed there. After laying
down some general rules and principles, he gives this rule: “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.” (Rom 14:1-2)
There were some people
among them who chose to be vegetarians, rather than run the risk of buying from
the butcher, meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols. Others ate their meat as usual, buying what was
offered at the market, asking no questions for conscience' sake. Those who lived on vegetables charged those
who are meat with idolatry. And those
who ate meat accused the vegetarians with superstition and weakness. This was wrong.
“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.” (Rom 14:3-4) There was also a controversy about observing the Jewish festival
days and holy days. Some believed that
God required this, and therefore they observed them. Others neglected them because they believed that God did not
require them to observe those days.
“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.” (Rom
14:5-13)
Now listen to what Paul
says. “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.”
(Rom 14:14-15) In other words,
Paul is saying that he knows that distinguishing between clean and unclean meat
is not binding under Christ, but to him that believes in that distinction, it
is wrong to eat indiscriminately because he does what he believes is contrary
to God’s command. “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.” Every man should be persuaded in his own
mind that what he is doing is right. If
a man eats meat that is said to be unclean, and he is not sure in his mind that
it is right to eat that meat, he offends God.
It is not good to eat
meat, or to drink wine, or consume anything that causes your brother to
stumble, or offends him, or weakens his faith.
This is a very useful
hint to those wine-drinkers and beer-guzzlers, who think the cause of
temperance is going to be ruined by totally giving up wine and beer, when it is
obvious to practically everybody, that these things are the greatest hindrance
to the temperance cause in this country.
“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.” (Rom 14:21-23)
The word, ‘condemn’ in
verse 22 means ‘judged guilty of breaking the law of God’. If a man doubts whether it is lawful to do
something, and while in that state of doubt he does it; he displeases God, he
breaks the law, and he is condemned whether the thing is right or wrong all by
itself. I have been very careful to
explain this passage in context, because I wanted to fully satisfy your minds
that the principle laid down is correct.
That if a man does
something that he doubts is lawful, he sins, and is condemned for it in the
sight of God.
Whether it really is
lawful or not, is not the question. If
he doubts that it is lawful, it is wrong for him to do it.
One exception, that
should be noted here, is when someone doubts the lawfulness of not doing
something just as much as he doubts the lawfulness of doing it. President Edwards addresses this nicely in
his 39th resolution: “Resolved, never
to do anything that I so much question the lawfulness of, as that I intend, at
the same time, to consider and examine afterwards, whether it is lawful or not:
except I question the lawfulness of not doing it just as much.”
A person may have equal
doubts whether he should or should not do something. Then all that can be said is, that he must act according to the
best light he can get. But whenever he
doubts the lawfulness of an act, but has no reason to doubt that not doing it
is lawful, and yet he does it anyway, he sins and is condemned before God, and
must repent or be damned. In examining
this subject further, I propose:
I. To show some reasons
why a man is a criminal for doing something that he doubts is lawful.
II. To apply this
principle to a number of specific cases.
III. To offer a few
conclusions and remarks, as time may allow.
I. I will show some
reasons why the principle laid down in the passages I’ve read to you today are correct; that if a man does something that he doubts is
lawful, he is condemned.
1. One reason why an
individual is condemned if he does something he doubts is lawful, is that if
God enlightens his mind to the point that it makes him doubt that the act is
lawful, he must stop right there, examine the question, and settle it to his
satisfaction.
Let me illustrate this:
suppose your child says he is going do a certain thing, or suppose he is
invited by his friends to go somewhere, and he doubts whether you want him to
go, do you not see that it is his duty to ask you? If one of his schoolmates invites him home, and he doubts whether
you would allow him to go to his friend’s house, and yet he goes, isn’t this
obviously wrong?
Or, suppose a man is cast
away on an uninhabited desert island.
He finds a place to live in the only cave he can find, considering
himself to be all alone, with no friends, no relief, or no hope; but every
morning he finds a supply of nutritious and wholesome food prepared for him,
sitting right in front of his cave, enough to supply all his needs for that
day. What is his duty? Do you say, he does not know that there is
anybody else on that island, and therefore he is not under any obligation to
anyone? Does not gratitude, on the
other hand, require him to search and find his unseen friend, and thank him for
his kindness? He cannot say, “I doubt
whether there is anybody else here, and therefore I will do nothing but eat
what I received and take it easy, and not worry about it”. His not searching for his benefactor would,
all by itself, convict him of being desperately wicked in heart. It is just as bad as if he knew who it was,
but refused to return thanks for the favors received.
Or, suppose an Atheist
lifts up his eyes to the splendor of the sun, moon and stars in the heavens,
and breathes in oxygen sending health and vigor through his frame. Here is enough evidence that God exists to
send him seeking after that great being who provides all these means of life
and happiness. And if he does not seek
after more light, if he does not care, if he sets his heart against God, he
shows that he has the heart as well as the mind of an Atheist. He has, to say the least, evidence that
there may be a God. What then should he
do? Clearly, his duty is to honestly
determine, with a most child-like and reverent spirit, to seek God and pay Him
reverence. If, when he has so much
light that the must confess that there is God, he still goes around as if God
didn’t exist, and does not seek after truth and obey it, he shows that his
heart is wrong, and that he says in his heart “let there be no God”.
Now, let’s look at the
Deist. He claims to believe in God, yet
here a Book that claims to be a revelation from God. Many good men believe that it is from God. The evidences are such that the most acute
and upright minds have been convinced of its truth. The evidences, both external and internal are very convincing. If someone said that there are no evidences,
people would question his sanity or his honesty. There is, to say the least, enough evidence to cast a doubt on
whether the bible is a fable or a false document. Now is it his duty to reject it?
No Deist can pretend that he is so fully persuaded in his own mind, that
he is free from all doubt. All he tries
to do is raise arguments and create doubts on the other side. It is his duty to stop and not oppose the
Bible, until he can prove that it is not from God.
The same is true with the
Unitarian. Granting (what is by no
means true) that the evidence in the Bible is not sufficient to remove all
doubts that Jesus Christ is God; yet it provides enough evidence to suggest
that Jesus Christ just might possibly be God.
Therefore, he has no right to reject the doctrine as untrue, but he is
required to search the scriptures honestly and satisfy himself one way or
another. Now, no intelligent and honest
man can say that the scriptures lack any evidence of the divinity of Christ. They provide enough evidence to convince and
fully satisfy thousands of the sharpest minds that were at one time opposed to
the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.
No one can reject this doctrine without a doubt, because there is
evidence that it may be true. And if it
may be true, and there is reason to doubt that it is not true, then a person
rejects it at his peril.
Then there is the
Universalist. Is there anyone here who
can say he has not doubted whether or not there is a hell, where sinners go
after death into endless torment?
Because the Universalist has doubted and questioned, he must stop and
inquire, and search the scriptures. It
is not enough for him to say he does not believe in a hell. If there is a hell, and if he rejects it and
goes on ignoring the truth of whether it exists or not, that, all by itself,
makes him a rebel against God. He
doubts if there is a hell, and yet he acts as if he was certain there was no
hell. He is condemned. I once knew a physician who was a
Universalist, and who has since gone into eternity to see if his speculations
were true or not. He once told me that
he had strong doubts of the truth of Universalism, and he mentioned his doubts
to his minister, who confessed that he too, doubted its truth, and he did not
believe there was a Universalist in the world who did not.
2. When a man does something he doubts is
lawful or right, it shows that he is selfish, and has other goals besides doing
the will of God.
It shows that he wants to
do it to gratify himself. He doubts
whether God will approve of it, and yet he does it. Isn’t he a rebel? If he
honestly wanted to serve God, the minute he doubted, he would stop, question
himself, and examine the situation until he was satisfied. But to go forward while he is in doubt shows
that he is selfish and wicked, and is willing to do it whether God is pleased
or not, and that he wants to do it whether it is right or wrong. He does it because he wants to do it, and
not because it is right.
3. To act this way is an
impeachment of God’s divine goodness.
He assumes that he is as
uncertain whether God has given a sufficient revelation of His will to enable
him to know his duty. He virtually says
that the path of obedience is so doubtful that he must proceed to go his own
way despite the risk.
4. Doing something doubtful indicates slothfulness
and stupidity of mind.
It shows that he would
rather do what is wrong than to use the necessary diligence to learn and know
what he must do. It shows that he is
either negligent or dishonest in his seeking.
5. Doing something doubtful manifests a
reckless spirit.
It shows a lack of
conscience, an indifference to right, a setting aside of the authority of God,
a desire not to do God's will, and not to care whether He is pleased or
displeased. It shows a desperate
recklessness and a stubborn attitude, that is the height of wickedness.
The principle then, which
is so clearly laid down in the context of today’s passage, and in the chapter
that I read from Corinthians, is fully supported by examination. That for anyone to do something, when he
doubts that it is lawful, is sin, for which he is condemned before God and must
repent or be damned.
II. I will now show how
this principle applies to a variety of particular situations in human
life. But
First, let me mention
some situations where a person may be equally in doubt concerning the
lawfulness of a thing, whether he should or should not do it.
Take the subject of Wine
at the Communion Table.
Since the Temperance
Reformation has brought up the question about the use of wine, and we know the
alcoholic content of wines today, many seriously doubt whether it is right to
use wine in celebrating the Lord's Supper.
Some strongly believe that wine is an essential part of the Lord’s
Supper, and that we should use the best wine we can get, and there leave the
matter. Others say that we should not
use alcoholic or intoxicating wine at all.
Since they feel that wine is not essential to celebrate the Lords
Supper, it is better to use some other drink.
Both these groups are undoubtedly equally conscientious, and both desire
to do what they believe agrees with God’s will. Others have doubts about the matter. I can easily see how some conscientious people don’t know which
way to act.
Many people doubt whether
it is right to use alcoholic wine, but they also doubt whether it is right to
use any other drink in the sacrament.
Here is a case that comes under President Edwards’ rule. It is a situation where one does not know
whether he should do it or not, and so he must decide according to the best
light he can get, honestly and with a desire to know and do what is most
pleasing to God.
I do not intend to
discuss the use of wine at the communion table, nor is this the proper place to
fully examine this subject. I only mentioned
it as an example. But while we are on
this topic, I will make two or three remarks.
(1.) I have never seen
all the evil that some claim comes from using wine during communion. I am not alarmed at the danger or evil of
taking a sip of wine, a teaspoon full or two, once a month, or once in two
months, or three months. I do not
believe that the disease of alcoholism (and alcoholism, you know is in reality
a disease of the body) will be either created or maintained by such a little
amount. Nor do I believe it is going to
injure the Temperance cause as much as some believe. Therefore, when a person uses wine at the communion table as we
have been accustomed to do, and is fully persuaded in his own mind that it is
lawful; he does not sin.
(2.) On the other hand, I
do not think that the use of wine is any way essential to communion. A lot has been said, written, and printed on
the subject, which has darkened counsel by words without knowledge. To my mind there are stronger reasons than I
have anywhere seen exhibited, for believing that wine is not essential to
communion. Many have spent a lot of
time trying to prove that our Savior used wine that was unfermented when He
instituted the supper, and which therefore contained no alcohol. Indeed, this has been one of the hottest
issues in the debate. But in fact, it
seems just as irrelevant as it would be to discuss whether or not He used wheat
or oat bread, or whether it was leavened or unleavened. Why don’t we hear this question hotly
argued? Because almost everybody feels
that it isn’t important.
In order to settle this
question about the wine, we should ask, what is the meaning for instituting the
supper? What was our Savior’s
purpose? It was to take the two staples
used to support life, food and drink, and use them to represent the need and
virtue of the atonement.
It is plain that Christ
had His atonement in view when he spoke at His Last Supper, for it corresponds
with what He said, “For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed”.
(John 6:55) So Jesus went to the temple and taught, saying, “If anyone
thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.”
(John 7:37) He is called the
“Bread of life”. (John 6:35) Thus, it was customary to show the value of
Christ's sufferings by food and drink.
Why did Jesus take bread instead of some other article of food? Those who know the history and customs of
that country knows that He chose the most common article of food used by the
people. When I was in Malta, it looked
like most of the people there lived on bread alone. They would go in crowds to the market place, and each buys a
piece of coarse bread, and stands there and eats it. Thus, the most common and the most universally wholesome article
of diet is chosen by Christ to represent His flesh. Then why did Jesus take wine to drink? For the same reason. Wine
is the common drink of the people in all those countries, especially at
mealtime. This is still true
today. It is sold there for about a
penny a bottle. The wine was cheaper
than a small beer is here. In Sicily, I
was told that wine was sold for five cents a gallon, and I do not know but it
was probably about as cheap as water.
And you will observe that the Lord's Supper was first observed at the
close of the feast of the Passover, at a time when the Jews always used
wine. The meaning that our Savior is
trying to convey in this ordinance, then, is this: As food and drink are
essential to the life of the body, so His body and blood, or His atonement, are
essential to the life of the soul.
Personally, I am fully convinced that wine is not essential to
communion, and I would not hesitate to give water to any individual who
conscientiously preferred it. Let it be
the common food and drink of the country, the support of life to the body, and
it meets our Lord’s purpose of communion.
If I were a missionary among the Esquimaux Indians, where they live on
dried seal's flesh and snow-water, I would administer the supper using those
substances. It would convey to their
minds the idea that they cannot live without Christ.
I say, then, that if an
individual is fully persuaded in his own mind, he does not sin in giving up the
use of wine. Let this church be fully
persuaded in their own minds, and I will have no problems complying with your decision. If you choose to substitute any other
commonly used wholesome drink instead of wine, that is fine. And at the same time, I have no objection
myself against having communion the traditional way.
Now, don't lose sight of
the great principle that we were discussing.
It is this: where a man honestly doubts whether it is lawful to do
something, and equally doubts, on the other hand, whether it is lawful to omit
doing it, he must pray over the matter, search the scriptures, and get the best
light he can on the subject, and then act.
And when he does this, he should not be judged or censured by others for
the course he takes. “Who are you to judge another's servant?” (Rom 14:4)
No man is authorized to make his own conscience the rule of his neighbor's
conduct.
A similar situation is
where a minister is in such a situation that he must travel a long way on the
Sabbath to preach. For example, he may
have to preach to two congregations.
Here he may honestly doubt what is his duty. If he goes, it appears to strangers that he is ignoring the
Sabbath. If he does not go, the people
will have no preaching. The solution
is, let him search the scriptures, and get the best light he can, make it a subject
of prayer, weigh it thoroughly, and act according to his best judgment.
A Sunday-school teacher
may encounter a similar problem. He may
live a long way from the school, and he may have to travel to it on the Sabbath,
or they will have no school. And he may
honestly doubt which is his duty, to remain in his own church on the Sabbath,
or to travel to a destitute neighborhood to hold Sunday school. Here he must decide for himself, according
to the best light he can get. Let no
one set himself up to judge over a humble and conscientious disciple of the Lord
Jesus.
You see that, in these
examples, it is understood and is clear, that the purpose is to honor God, and
the sole ground of doubt is, which course of action will really honor Him. Paul says, in reference to all laws of this
kind, “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.” Romans 14:6) The purpose is to do right, and
the doubt relates to the best way to do right.
Now, I would like to
mention some situations, where the purpose is wrong, where the object is to
gratify self, and the individual has doubts whether he can do it lawfully. I will refer to situations where there are
differences of opinion, to acts that a person must doubt are lawful.
1. Take, for example,
making or selling alcoholic drinks.
After all that has been
said on this subject, and all the light that has been thrown on this question,
is there anybody alive in this land today who can say he sees no reason to
doubt the lawfulness of this business.
Anybody who has an honest mind must have some doubts as to whether
making or selling alcohol is right. In
fact, every honest mind but must know that it is downright wrong, and in some
cases, even criminal. For the sake of
argument, let us say that the distiller or the vender does not feel that it is
unlawful. However, we can say that
there have been times when he must have at least doubted whether what he is
doing is right. What should he to do
then? Should he shut his eyes to the
light, and go on, regardless of truth so long as he can keep from seeing
it? No. He may argue and raise objections all he wants to, but he knows
that he has doubts about whether his business is lawful in the eyes of
God. And if he doubts, and still
persists in doing it without taking the trouble to examine and find out what is
right, he is just as sure to be damned as if he continued on in the face of
knowledge. You hear these men say,
“Why, I am not fully persuaded in my own mind, that the Bible forbids making or
selling strong spirits.” Well, suppose
you are not fully convinced, suppose all your possible and conceivable
objections are not removed, what then?
You know you have doubts about its lawfulness. And it is not necessary for me to try to convince you of your
wrongdoing. If you doubt that it is lawful, and yet you persist in doing it,
you are on the way to hell.
2. The same is true where
an individual is engaged in a job or an occupation that requires him to break
the Sabbath.
Working in a Post-office
that is open on the Sabbath, or a Turnpike gate, or a Steamboat, or any other
employment that is not absolutely necessary are examples of jobs that require
you to break the Sabbath. There are
always things that must be done on the Sabbath, like milking cows. They are works of mercy or works that are
absolutely necessary.
But suppose you have a
situation where the work is not necessary, like in transporting the U.S. mail
on the Sabbath, or something similar.
The least that you can say, the lowest ground that can be taken by
charity itself, without becoming a fool, is that the lawfulness of such employment
is doubtful. And if people persist in
doing it, they sin, and are on the way to hell. God has sent out the penalty of His law against them, and if they
do not repent, they must be damned.
3. Owning stocks in
things like steamboat and railroad companies, in stages and canal boats that
break the Sabbath.
Can any one, owning a
portion of a Sabbath breaking company, truly say he does not doubt the
lawfulness of such an investment of capital?
Can love stoop lower than to say that, that person must strongly doubt
whether what he is doing is a work of necessity or mercy? It is not necessary in this situation to
demonstrate that it is unlawful, although that can be done fully, but only to
show enough light to create a doubt that it is lawful. Then if that person persists in doing it,
with that doubt unsatisfied, he is condemned and lost.
4. The same remarks will
apply to all kinds of lottery gambling.
The gambler doubts that what he is doing is right..
5. Take the situation of
those indulgences of appetite, which are the subject of controversy, and which,
to say the least, are doubtful that they are right.
(1.) The drinking of
wine, beer, and other fermented intoxicating liquors. In the present aspect of the temperance cause, it would be difficult
to prove that using these drinks does not violate the rule laid down by the
apostle, “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”. (Rom 14:21)
No man can make me believe that he has no doubts that what he is doing
is the right thing to do. There is no
certain proof that it is lawful.
However, there is lots of proof that it is unlawful, and every man who
does it while he doubts that it is lawful is condemned, and if he persists, he
is damned.
If this argument is
misleading, I would like to know it, for I do not want to deceive others nor be
deceived myself. But I am entirely
deceived if this is not a simple, direct, and necessary conclusion from the intention
of today’s passage.
(2.) Tobacco. Can any one pretend that he has no doubt
that it is God’s will for him to use tobacco?
No one can pretend that he doubts the lawfulness of not using
tobacco. Does any man alive think that
he is required to use wine, or strong beer, or tobacco, as a luxury? No.
The doubt is all on one side.
What shall we say then, about that person who doubts the lawfulness of
these things, and still chooses to partake of them as if he totally disregards
those nagging doubts in his conscience?
He is condemned.
(3.) I could refer to
coffee. It is known generally, that
coffee is not nutritious at all, and that millions of dollars are spent
annually for it in this country. Now,
will any one pretend that he does not doubt the lawfulness of spending all this
money for that which is worthless, and which is well known to all who have
examined the subject to be positively injurious, intolerable to weak stomachs,
and potentially addictive? And doing
all of this while the various benevolent societies of this age are loudly
calling for help to send the gospel abroad and save a world from hell! To think of the church alone spending
millions of dollars on their tea tables, and catered services, is there no doubt
here?
6. Now, let’s apply this
principle to various amusements and the world of entertainment.
(1.) The theater. Multitudes of professing Christians attend
the theater. They contend that the
Bible does not forbid it. Now listen. What professing Christian ever went to a
theater and did not have doubts that what he was doing was lawful. I not only believe that this clearly is a
doubtful situation, but I also believe that it can be shown that attending the
theater is unlawful. But, my purpose
now is only to address those of you here who go to the theater, and are trying
to cover up yourselves in the refuge that the Bible nowhere expressly forbids
it.
(2.) Parties of Pleasure,
where you go and overindulge in eating and drinking. Is there no reason to doubt whether God requires such use of your
time and money? Look at the starving
poor, consider the effect of this gaiety and extravagance, and see if you will
ever go to another such party, or have one without doubting its lawfulness. Where can you find a man, or a woman, that
will go so far as to say they have no doubt?
Probably, not one honest mind will say this. And if you doubt and still do it, you are condemned.
You see that this
principle affects so many things that are controversial, and people attempt to
ignore this principle by saying it is not worse than doing this or that, and
thus they try to avoid the condemning sentence of God's law. But in fact, if there is a doubt, it is
their duty to abstain.
(3.) Take the case of
balls, of novel reading, and other methods of wasting time. Is this God's way to spend your lives? Can you say you have no doubt that God
approves what you are doing?
7. Making calls on the
Sabbath. People will make a call, and
then apologize for it. “I didn’t feel
that it was quite right, but I thought I would do it anyway.” He is a Sabbath breaker in heart, at all
events, because he doubts.
8. Compliance with
worldly customs like New-Year’s Day. On
that day the ladies are all at home, and the gentlemen are running all over
town calling on them, and the ladies make a lot of fancy preparations, and
treat them with their cake, and their wine and punch, enough to poison them
almost to death, and both men and women together bow down to the goddess of
fashion. Is there a lady here that does
not doubt the lawfulness of all this? I
say that I can demonstrate that it is wicked, but I only ask the ladies of this
city. Is it not doubtful whether this
is lawful? I should call into question
the sanity of the man or woman that has no doubts of the lawfulness of such
customs, in the midst of such prevailing intemperance that exists in this
city. Who among you will practice it
again? Practice it if you dare, at the
peril of your soul. If you do that
which is merely doubtful, God frowns and condemns, and you must regard His
voice.
I know people try to
excuse the matter, and say it is well to have a day appropriated to such calls,
when every lady is at home and every gentleman is free from business, and all
that. And all that is fine and
dandy. But, when it is seen to be so
abused, and to produce so much evil, I ask every Christian here, if you can
help doubting its lawfulness? And if it
is doubtful, it comes under the rule: “If meat offends my brother”, if keeping
New-Year's leads to so much gluttony, and drunkenness, and wickedness, doesn’t
it bring the lawfulness of it into doubt?
Yes, that is the least that can be said, and they who doubt and yet do
it, sin against God.
9. Compliance with the
extravagant fashions of the day.
Christian lady! Have you never doubted, do you not now
doubt, whether it is lawful for you to copy these fashions brought from foreign
countries, and from places which it were a shame even to name in this
assembly? Have you no doubt about it? And if you doubt and you still do it, you are
condemned, and must repent of your sin, or you will be lost forever!
10. Intermarriages of
Christians with impenitent sinners.
This answer always comes
up. “But after all you say, it is still
not certain that these marriages are not lawful.” Suppose this is true, yet, don’t the Bible and the nature of the
situation make it, at least, doubtful whether they are right? It can be demonstrated that it is
unlawful. But suppose I could not prove
that it is unlawful. What Christian ever committed themselves to be unequally
yoked, did not doubt that it was lawful?
And he who doubts is condemned.
That doubt must be removed so your path before you is clear. See that Christian man or woman that is
about to make such a commitment, doubting all the time whether it is right,
trying to pray away their conscience under the pretext of praying for light,
praying all round their duty, and yet pressing on in disobedience. Please be careful! You know that you doubt the lawfulness of what you propose, and remember,
he that doubts is damned.
Thus, you see, dearly
beloved, that here is a principle that will stand by you when you rebuke sin,
and the power of society is employed to face you down and put you on the
defensive. This principle will bring
absolute proof of the sinfulness of a cherished practice. Remember, the burden of proof does not lie
on you, to show beyond a doubt the absolute unlawfulness of something. If you can show sufficient reason to
question its lawfulness, and to create a valid doubt whether it is according to
the will of God, you shift the burden of proof to the other side. And unless you can remove the doubt, and
show that there is no room for doubt, you have no right to continue. If you do, you sin against God.
REMARKS
1. Knowing our duty is
not necessary for our moral obligation, but simply possessing the means of
knowledge is sufficient to make a person responsible.
If a man has the means of
knowing whether it is right or wrong, he is required to use those means, and is
required to inquire and discover what is right or wrong at his peril.
2. If those people, who
do things that they doubt are lawful, are condemned and deemed worthy of
damnation, what shall we say about the multitudes who are continually doing
what they know and confess to be wrong?
Woe to that man who
practices that which he condemns. And
“Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves”. (Rom 14:22)
3. Hypocrites often
attempt to hide behind their doubts to avoid their duty.
The hypocrite is unwilling
to be enlightened, he doesn't want to know the truth, because he doesn't want
to obey the Lord. So, he hides behind
his doubts, and turns his eye away from the light, and will not look or examine
to see what his duty is. It is in this
way that he tries to shield himself from His responsibility. But God will drag him out from behind his
refuge of lies, by the principle laid down in our passage, that their very
doubts condemn them.
Many refuse to be
enlightened on the subject of temperance, and persist in drinking or selling
rum, because they are not fully convinced it is wrong. They will not read one tract or a paper, nor
attend a temperance meeting, for fear they shall be convinced. Many are resolved to indulge in the use of
wine and strong beer, and they will not listen to anything designed to convince
them that it is wrong. It shows that
they are determined to indulge in sin, and they hope to hide behind their
doubts. What better evidence could they
give that they are hypocrites?
Who in all these United
States can say, that he has no doubts about the lawfulness of slavery? Yet, most of the people will not hear
anything on the subject, and they get upset if you bring it up. It has been seriously proposed, both in the
North and in the South, to pass laws forbidding inquiring and discussing the
subject. Now, suppose these laws should
be passed, to enable this nation to hide behind its doubts whether slavery is a
sin and that should be abolished immediately.
Will that help the matter? Not
at all! If they continue to hold their
fellow men as property in slavery, while they doubt its lawfulness, they are
condemned before God, and we may be sure their sin will find them out, and God
will let them know how He feels about it.
It is amazing to see how
foolish people are on this subject, as if by refusing to get clear of their
doubts they could get clear of their sin.
Think of the people of the South.
Christians, and even ministers, refuse to read any paper on the subject
of slavery, and perhaps, they may even send the paper back with abusive or
threatening words. Threatening--for
what? For reasoning with them about
their duty? It can be clearly shown
that slavery is unlawful, and should be repented of and given up like any other
sin. But suppose they only doubt that
slavery is lawful, and have no desire to be enlightened, they are condemned by
God. Let them know that they cannot
ignore this issue; they cannot clear themselves of it. As long as they doubt that it is lawful,
they cannot hold men in slavery without sin, and those who do doubt that it is
lawful demonstrate it by their opposition to any enlightening discussion about
slavery.
We may suppose a
situation, which may exist in the South, where a man not only doubts that
holding slaves is lawful but also doubts the lawfulness of emancipating them in
their present state under the conditions that currently exist down there. In that situation, he comes under Pres. Edward's
rule. It is his duty, not to get upset
with those who would call his attention to it, not to refuse to read newspapers
and articles concerning slavery, but to seek for light and wisdom, and examine
the question honestly in the light of the word of God until his doubts are
cleared up. The least he can do is to
set himself with all his power to educate his slaves and train them to take
care of themselves as fast and as thoroughly as possible, and to put them in a
situation where they can be set free.
4. There is very little
conscience in the church today.
Multitudes are persisting
to do what they strongly doubt is lawful.
5. There is less love for
God than there should be in the church.
We cannot even pretend
that our love of God is the cause of all this following after fashions, this
practicing indulgences, and so many other things where people doubt that it is
lawful. They do not persist in these
things because they truly love God.
No! But they persist in it
because they want to do it to gratify themselves, and they would rather run the
risk of doing wrong than to have their doubts cleared up. It is because they have so little love for
God, so little care for the honor of God.
6. Do not say, in your
prayers, “Oh Lord, if I have sinned in this thing, Oh Lord, forgive me that
sin.”
If you have done something
that you doubt is lawful, you have sinned, whether the thing itself is right or
wrong. And you must repent, and ask forgiveness.
Now, let me ask you all
who are present here today, are you convinced that to do what you doubt is
lawful, is sin? If you are, I have one
more question to ask you. Will you from
this time forward relinquish everything that you doubt is lawful? Every amusement, every indulgence, every
practice, every pursuit? Will you do
it, or will you stand before the solemn judgment seat of Jesus Christ,
condemned? If you will not relinquish
these things, you show that you are an impenitent sinner, and do not intend to
obey God, and if you do not repent, you bring down on your head God's condemnation
and wrath forever.