Vos' article on the doctrine of the separated life is quite exhaustive and a good overall treatment on the subject. I have a question and an observation
that I would like to get others opinions in fleshing it out.
First the question. Did Vos bypass Romans 14:23 and what is the meaning of it. I don't recall him referencing the verse though he references the verses around it in the same passage. "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23 NASB) I always took that verse to teach that if one's conscience guides (not sure if guides is the word I'm looking for) a believer away from something that is considered indifferent, it is a sin for the believer to do that something. If it is not by faith, then it is a sin. I realize that a person's conscience is not the standard because it can be easliy fooled. Yet, I see the reason why a believer may do something indifferent not from faith coming from outside influences that could be sinful. As an example, I do not drink alcohol. I know that it is not a sin, but the only reason for me to drink would be from peer pressure or another outside influence, not one from faith in glorifying God. I realize I'm free to abstain, but I think it falls more from "whatever is not from faith is sin". As I said Vos didn't address that verse directly, but my take on him is that he would disagree. His view would be that it is okay to abstain, but using one's conscience (faith) in a matter of things indifferent is a sin because the believers is going beyond Scripture. Any thoughts on this.
In a few settings lately the discussion has come up concerning the Christian witness. I think some misapply the "do not make your brother stumble' by expanding it into the area of evangelism. Although we are always suppose to be Christlike in all our doings, I think that doctrine applies to Christians (brother) and only secondary to the unbeliever. We were discussing that Christians have a bad reputation of being rude or bad tippers when eating out. They may pray before the meal identifying them as Christians but some may say they are bad witnesses. Yes that is a bad witness, but the reason for not doiing that is not "do not make your brother stumble". Those who are making that charge in general about Christians are not interested in the gospel message, basically they disdain the gospel. So, that phrase has a much narrow scope that is often given to it. Any thoughts on this.
First the question. Did Vos bypass Romans 14:23 and what is the meaning of it. I don't recall him referencing the verse though he references the verses around it in the same passage. "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23 NASB) I always took that verse to teach that if one's conscience guides (not sure if guides is the word I'm looking for) a believer away from something that is considered indifferent, it is a sin for the believer to do that something. If it is not by faith, then it is a sin. I realize that a person's conscience is not the standard because it can be easliy fooled. Yet, I see the reason why a believer may do something indifferent not from faith coming from outside influences that could be sinful. As an example, I do not drink alcohol. I know that it is not a sin, but the only reason for me to drink would be from peer pressure or another outside influence, not one from faith in glorifying God. I realize I'm free to abstain, but I think it falls more from "whatever is not from faith is sin". As I said Vos didn't address that verse directly, but my take on him is that he would disagree. His view would be that it is okay to abstain, but using one's conscience (faith) in a matter of things indifferent is a sin because the believers is going beyond Scripture. Any thoughts on this.
In a few settings lately the discussion has come up concerning the Christian witness. I think some misapply the "do not make your brother stumble' by expanding it into the area of evangelism. Although we are always suppose to be Christlike in all our doings, I think that doctrine applies to Christians (brother) and only secondary to the unbeliever. We were discussing that Christians have a bad reputation of being rude or bad tippers when eating out. They may pray before the meal identifying them as Christians but some may say they are bad witnesses. Yes that is a bad witness, but the reason for not doiing that is not "do not make your brother stumble". Those who are making that charge in general about Christians are not interested in the gospel message, basically they disdain the gospel. So, that phrase has a much narrow scope that is often given to it. Any thoughts on this.
