Why did Paul give the rule?
He alerts the reader as to his subject matter in verse 14:1. The topic of chapter 14 is receiving those who are weaker in faith. He gives two examples of "beliefs" that are weak: 1)One person only eats vegetables, and 2)One person regards one day as holier than the others. The question Paul is addressing is this, "How do we receive fellow servants of the Lord who maintain inferior beliefs?
Paul postulates that both parties are serving the Lord. Thus, if both parties are serving the Lord but hold opposing beliefs, then each man should be convinced in his own mind. The obvious corollary is this. Don't engage in public argument, especially if the purpose of the argument is to judge the other person.
What were they doing that made him give the rule before he gave the rule?
Judging each other's opinions.
Nope, the rule Paul lays down is not "make sure you get your beliefs correct", it's "you are bound to the freedom of living out your convictions
I don't think you meant to say "bound to freedom" did you? Sounds like a lyric out of a Joni Mitchell song. :)
Being convinced in our minds is not the same thing as living according to our convictions if that is what you meant. Everyone lives according to their convictions that's what we naturally do.
, even if your convictions are held in ignorance (eg, you ignorantly think only eating vegetables is acceptable)"--so much so that the one whose beliefs are "correctly informed" (eg, the meat eater) is not free to impose his "reason based conclusion based on correct facts" on his brother, because he could destroy him by so doing.
The text of Romans 14 says nothing about imposing our views onto another person. No mention of anything like ordaining, decreeing, or establishing rules to follow. The topic of the chapter is receiving those who are weaker in faith.
No,
a) A person could have a religious conviction about dietary matters--eg, by the time Peter had the vision, years after the Gospel had been being preached, he still hadn't eaten anything forbidden by the Law, because he had heartfelt convictions about abstaining from those foods. He had an ethical code based on religious belief that was also dietary.
It's important to understand why Paul doesn't appear to care, one way or the other, whether a person keeps one day holy or considers all days to be alike. It's worth spending some time sorting this out. He exhorts his readers to receive the one who is weak in faith, citing the example of the Sabbatarian who considers one day to be holy.
If it is morally right to keep one day holy in every situation, then Paul would not suggest that it is acceptable for someone to treat all days the same while serving the Lord. Therefore, we understand that keeping one day holy is considered good for those who worship God within the Jewish tradition, but it is not required for those outside the Jewish context.
In other words, the rule to keep one day holy does not carry the same weight as the prohibition against murder. Murder is always wrong in every context. On the other hand, keeping a day holy is considered "good" only in the Jewish context. Gentiles are not obligated to keep a day holy.
The person with the weaker faith is the religious individual who has elevated religious rules or laws, which are only obligatory for those who practice the religion, to rules that everyone must follow because, in their view, these rules must be observed in all contexts. In other words, as we even see on this board, those who are weak in faith will insist that ALL Christians keep the Sabbath day.
Peter was allowed to eat things that weren't kosher because kosher laws don't define the good for every context.
b) "Avoid eating meat offered to idols" is a sound doctrine, depending on how it is applied (revolving around "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind", and whether they have knowledge, and whether they are convinced by that knowledge).
You seem to be forgetting the fact that Paul describes such a person as one "weak in faith." That is, he is NOT believing sound doctrine but erroneous doctrine instead. The sound doctrine in this matter, according to Paul, is that all foods are clean.
No, he doesn't; he commands the audience to do only those things which they are fully persuaded are correct, and to not overstep that boundary.
Rather, it allows for the freedom that each person walk in their own, even uninformed, convictions "as unto the Lord".
I see what you are saying, but the emphasis is on serving the Lord as the basis for our fellowship. I am not obligated to receive everyone. I am obliged to receive all those who are serving the Lord, even if we disagree over religious convictions. But if they are not serving the Lord, then I should not receive them.
1. To keep things in perspective, you were denying this was a personal issue, and trying to say it had more to do with the community not being led into judging one another, and my response was to say, no, "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" is a personal command which individuals are held accountable to.
I understand your point about personal convictions and agree with you. However, the command to "receive the one weak in faith" involves dialogue and interaction with other people, and perhaps a community at large. Since we both agree that Paul wrote his letter to a group of Gentiles who were about to receive returning Jews to Rome, it makes sense for Paul to alert his readers that some of those who return to Rome may not share their opinions on certain subjects.
2. No, "in the context of faith", it's not about "God's promises", because the examples given are about people differing in their personal views about the rightness of eating a food or observing a day, and Paul permits these differences--ie, if it were about "God's promises", Paul would be sinning to let them doubt "God's promises" (ie, by having differing views).
Paul is talking about people "weak in faith" and I take issue with those who have incorrect understandings of the Biblical concept of faith. (I'm not charging you with this, I am merely using this opportunity to correct the error. :) Some believe that "faith" is like "the force" in Star Wars, a power source to control and direct as needed. The man who believes this is likely going to interpret the phrase "weak faith" in terms of one's ability to get things done, spiritually speaking.
Another man might believe that "faith" is another way of knowing -- an epistemological technique affording the believer with supernatural knowledge. This man would interpret "weak faith" to mean "unable to discern spiritual things."
Neither of these images accurately represents "faith." Biblical faith is centered on truth, God's word, and his promises. For this reason, those with a "weak faith" are those who are incorrect about what is true, what God said in his word, or what he promised.
No, because then Paul would've instructed, "Command that vegetarian to think correctly about how to eat before the Lord!"? Instead, he allows the vegetarian to follow his convictions. Clearly, it is not as you say.
Paul makes his opinion known that all foods are clean. In this way, Paul sides with the meat-eaters that their beliefs are correct. Yet, Paul allows the vegetarian to follow his own conviction on the matter, even though his opinion is incorrect. His permissive stance on the issue indicates to me that the Faith of Christ allows for differences of opinion on issues of insignificant concern.
Since Paul is speaking into a situation where a church filled with Gentile believers is about to receive the repatriated Jews, returning to Jerusalem, and based on his own experiences with the unification of Jews and Gentiles, I say Rome's challenge is to avoid arguing with Jews over the Sabbath or dietary regulations.
Right--but, to redirect (back on course), again, the overarching rule at play is "each man must be fully convinced in his own mind" so that they do not "sin" and be "condemned" (Ro 14:23).
Okay. But you still have yet to present a good argument for why Romans 14:23 is talking about God's condemnation rather than man's.
Your insistence on making the issue about the group not judging one another, instead of acknowledging that there is the other issue of the individual not crossing the boundary of his personal conviction even if it is wrongly informed.
Well, can you blame me for taking my cues from the first verse, where Paul alerts his readers to the subject matter?
I didn't say I was confused, I said it was "odd", which means I said it sarcastically.
Oh. I never met anyone from the "Piranha brothers." :) Just kidding.
